City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element. The Wineman Hotel, a 48-unit mixed use project in Downtown San Luis Obispo

Transcription

1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element The Wineman Hotel, a 48-unit mixed use project in Downtown San Luis Obispo January 2010

2 Community Development Department MISSION STATEMENT Our mission is to identify and serve the needs of all people in a positive and courteous manner and to help ensure that San Luis Obispo remains a healthy, safe, attractive and enjoyable place to live, work or visit. We help plan the City's form and character, support community values, preserve the environment, promote the wise use of resources and protect public health and safety. OUR SERVICE PHILOSOPHY The City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department staff provides high-quality service whenever and wherever you need it. We will: Listen to and understand your needs; Give clear, accurate and prompt answers to your questions; Explain how you can achieve your goals under the City's rules; Help resolve problems in an open, objective and fair manner; Maintain the highest ethical standards; and Work to continually improve our services. Front Cover Photo: Craig Smith, CRSA Architects,

3 City of San Luis Obispo HOUSING ELEMENT Adopted January 19, 2010 San Luis Obispo City Council Resolution Nos and (2010 Series) SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL David Romero, Mayor Andrew Carter John Ashbaugh Allen Settle, Vice Mayor Jan Howell Marx PLANNING COMMISSION Charles Stevenson, Chair Michael Draze Michael Multari, Vice-Chair Mary Whittlesey Michael Boswell Eric Meyer Airlin Singewald COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT John Mandeville, Director Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long-Range Planning Jeff Hook, Senior Planner Michael Codron, Housing Programs Manager Ryan Brough, Planning Intern Kevin Fang, Planning Intern Ulises Gonzales, Planning Intern Caitlin Morici, Planning Intern Matthew Plummer, Planning Intern Leeanne Singleton, Planning Intern Kyle Stevens, Planning Intern City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA

4 FOREWORD This Housing Element updates the 2004 Housing Element and addresses several important changes to State housing law. Like the previous element, it has been prepared to help San Luis Obispo City residents secure safe housing that will meet their personal needs and financial circumstances, and to meet State law. However, this update reflects a very different set of economic and development conditions than the previous one. While the City faces many of the same housing needs and challenges, it does so with substantially fewer financial resources, making our task even more daunting. In January 2010, the City, State and Nation are grappling with stagnant economic growth, budget deficits and reduced resources for housing programs at all government levels. This is the difficult fiscal environment we face with this Housing Element update. This element was approved by the City Council after considering and revising the Element during several public hearings in 2009 and It incorporates changes made by the Council during its review and follows closely the Planning Commission s recommendations. The Planning Commission approved a draft and forwarded it to the City Council for action following approximately 12 months of review and six public hearings. As part of the required Housing Element update process and pursuant to State law, the adopted Housing Element has been forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and certification. The Draft Housing Element was then revised to respond to HCD comments and ensure conformance with state housing law. The Housing Element is part of the General Plan and is one of eight elements or chapters of that plan. It sets out the City s goals, policies and programs for housing over the next five years. It works in concert with the other plan elements to help achieve the broad community goals as expressed in the General Plan Land Use Element. The other elements are Circulation, Noise, Safety, Conservation and Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Water and Wastewater. Housing elements must be updated periodically, according to a State adopted schedule. This Element is due to be updated in The Housing Element is available on the City s website at and copies of the General Plan are available from the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California Phone: (805) Fax: (805)

5 Chapter GENERAL PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD INTRODUCTION Purpose Citizen Participation Consistency with State Planning Law General Plan Consistency What s New in this Element Housing Element Organization COMMUNITY FACTORS Community Overview Demographic Snapshots Housing Snapshots Neighborhood Snapshots GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Overview Summary of New Programs Goals, Policies and Programs Implementation Tools QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES Overview Housing Construction Completed Housing Construction Objectives Preservation of At-Risk Units Rehabilitation and Preservation Objectives Quantified Objectives Summary

6 LIST OF TABLES Page 1. State Housing Element Requirements Resources/Incentives Available For Housing Activities Dwellings Built, Under Construction or Permitted, 1/07-3/ Regional Housing Need Allocation, January December Rehabilitation, Preservation, and Conservation Objectives Remaining RHNA Need Based on Dwelling Units Built, Permitted or Under Construction, January 1, 2007 to December 31, Quantified Objectives Summary, January December LIST OF FIGURES 1. Areas To Be Considered For Possible Rezoning...35 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. COMMUNITY PROFILE POPULATION TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS...66 a. Age Composition b. Race and Ethnicity 2. EMPLOYMENT TRENDS HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS...73 a. Household Formation and Type b. Household Income 4. HOUSING INVENTORY AND MARKET FACTORS...81 a. Housing Stock Profile and Population Growth b. Unit Type c. Unit Size d. Tenure e. Vacancy Rates f. Age of Housing Stock g. Housing Condition h. Housing Costs and Rents i. Affordability Gap Analysis 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS...97 APPENDIX B. HOUSING NEEDS REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT...99 a. Existing Housing Needs b. Housing Needs For SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS a. Elderly Persons b. Large Families 6

7 c. Female-Headed Households c. Disabled Persons d. Homeless Persons d. Farm Workers e. Students f. Fraternities and Sororities g. Shared Households 3. CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX C. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS a. Land Use Controls b. Zoning Regulations and Development Standards c. Specific Plans d. Residential Growth Management Regulations e. Architectural Review f. Building and Zoning Code Enforcement g. Processing and Permit Procedures h. Development Fees i. Infrastructure j. Public Services k. Schools l. Inclusionary Housing Requirement 2. NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS a. Land Costs b. Construction Costs c. Availability and Cost of Financing d. Insurance Costs e. Design Expectations f. Investment Expectations g. Environmental Constraints APPENDIX D. RESIDENTIAL LAND RESOURCES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY CALCULATION AVAILABILITY OF SITES FOR HOUSING a. Vacant Residential Land b. Underutilized Residential Land c. Vacant or Underutilized Land Suitable for Mixed-Use Development d. Vacant or Underutilized Land Designated as Interim Open Space e. Vacant or Underutilized Land Outside City Limits, Within the Urban Reserve, Including Major Expansion Areas f. Possible Rezonings 7

8 g. Secondary Dwelling Units h. Pipeline Projects 3. REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION/QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES a. Zoning Appropriate to Accommodate Housing for Lower Income Housing 4. EVALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY REALISTIC RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY a. Realistic Development Capacity Analysis b. Default Density c. Small Sites Analysis 6. EXISTING AND PROPOSED INCENTIVES TO FACILITATE HOUSING CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX E. REVIEW OF THE 2004 HOUSING ELEMENT RESULTS APPENDIX F. FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN APPENDIX G. HOUSING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS APPENDIX H. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS APPENDIX I. PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION LIST APPENDIX J. LEGISLATIVE CHANGES AFFECTING HOUSING APPENDIX K. PUBLIC OUTREACH APPENDIX L. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN SAN LUIS OBISPO APPENDIX M. RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY INVENTORY APPENDIX N. GLOSSARY APPENDIX O. REFERENCES APPENDIX P. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT TABLES APPENDIX Q. COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS APPENDIX R. STATE CERTIFICATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT

9 APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES A-1. Population Growth, A-2. Average Annual Population Growth, A-3. Population Projections, A-4. Age Distribution, A-5. Racial and Ethnic Composition, 1990 and A-6. Projected Change in Racial and Ethnic Composition by Percent, A-7. Employment, San Luis Obispo City, County and California, A-8. Labor Force and Unemployment, A-9. Number of Households, 1990, 2000 and A-10. Household Size, 1990, 2000 and A-11. Households by Type, Percent of Total Households, A-12. Estimated Number of Households by Type, A-13. Estimated Number of Households by Household Size, A-14. Median Household and Family Incomes, 1989, 1999 and A-15. Median Family Income, 1989, 1999 and A-16. Per Capita Incomes, 1989, 1999 and A-17. State Income Categories...79 A-18. Households by State Income Category, A-19. Households Below Poverty Level by Household Type, A-20. Households Below Poverty Level by Household Type, A-21. Residential Development, A-22. Composition of Housing Stock by Unit Type, 1990, 2000 and A-23. Housing Size - Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, A-24. Estimated Tenure of Occupied Housing Units, A-25. Age of Housing Stock, A-26. Median Residential Real Estate Sales Prices, A-27. Range and Average Rental Costs, A-28. Range and Average Rental Costs, 2003 and A-29. Rental Vacancy Rates, A-30. Single Family House Values, A-31. Median Monthly Owner Cost as Percentage of Household Income, A-32. Median Residential Real Estate Costs v. Median Family Income, A-33. Median Gross Rent as Percentage of Household Income, A-34. Affordable Rents by Income Group, A-35. Average Floor Area by Income type, B-1. Residential Overcrowding, B-2. Average Household Size by Tenure, B-3. Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan, January 2010 December

10 APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES B-4 Household Incomes, Area Median Incomes, Estimated No. of Households B-5. Elderly Mobility and Disability Status, B-6. Special Needs Housing and Residential Care Facilities, B-7. Large Households by Tenure, B-8. Female-Headed Households, B-9. Persons Reporting Mobility or Self-Care Limitations, B-10 Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Facilities B-11. Summary of Housing Needs, City of San Luis Obispo C-1. Land Use Categories Allowing Residential Uses, C-2. Summary of Residential Development Standards, C-3. Selected Flexible Residential Development Standards, C-4. Estimated Housing Capacity in Expansion Areas, C-5. Margarita Area Specific Plan, Approved Tract Maps, C-6. Orcutt Area Specific Plan, Affordable Housing Capacity by Zone C-7. Major Expansion Areas Phasing Plan C-8. Code Enforcement Cases, C-9. Comparative Development Fee Summary, C-10. Residential Development Impact Fees Per Dwelling Unit, C-11. Water Available For Residential Development, C-12. Population Change, D-1. Vacant and Underutilized Land in Expansion Areas, January D-2. Areas to be Considered for Possible Rezoning D-3. Pipeline Residential Development Projects, February D-4. Remaining RHNA Need Based on Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction or Built, January 1, 2007 through December 31, D-5. D-6. Summary of Residential Capacity for Lower and Moderate Income Housing Maximum Residential Densities and No. of Dwellings Allowed by Right, Per Net Net Acre by Zone D-7 Residential Densities of Recent Development Projects on Small Sites D-8 Summary of Regional Housing Need, January 1, 2010 December 31, D-9 Summary of Residential Capacity, January 1, 2010 December 31, E-1. Housing Element Evaluation, E-2. Progress in Achieving Housing Element Qualified Objectives, H-1. General Plan Consistency Evaluation M-1 Maximum Residential Density by Zone and Slope M-2 Summary of Residential Capacity by Parcel, by Survey Subarea

11 APPENDIX LIST OF FIGURES A-1. Population Pyramid, A-2. Housing and Population Growth, A-3. Median Residential Real Estate Cost vs. Median Family Income...94 C-1. New Housing Opportunities C-2. Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan Mixed-Use Housing Opportunities C-3. General Plan Anticipated Housing and Population Growth C-4. Comparison of Development Fees for a 2,000 Square-Foot, Single- Family House, C-5. Residential Construction, D-1. Residential Development Capacity by Zone, in Density Units M-1 Residential Capacity Survey Subareas M-2 Development Capacity by Survey Subarea M-3 Development Capacity by Zone and Outside City of San Luis Obispo *** 11

12 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.10 Purpose The City has prepared this document to help its citizen s secure adequate and affordable housing, and to meet State law. In addition, this Housing Element update has the following basic objectives: To evaluate and quantify community housing needs, constraints and available resources to effectively satisfy those needs; To increase public awareness and understanding of the City's housing situation and its goals to encourage public participation in addressing those housing needs; To provide a comprehensive document that includes goals, policies and programs to help guide community efforts to meet housing needs through informed decision-making on land use and housing choices; To help develop more affordable housing, and a wider variety of housing, to meet the City's housing needs for the current planning period which runs from January 1, 2010 to December, 2014; To track and document the effectiveness of City programs in meeting housing needs, and to evaluate opportunities for improving those programs; To enable the City to secure financial assistance for the construction of affordable housing for very low-, low- and moderate income persons; and To fully integrate environmental sustainability, smart growth and conservation strategies into the City s housing policy. Under State law, cities are responsible for planning for the well being of their citizens. This Housing Element sets forth the City s policies and detailed programs for meeting existing and future housing needs, for preserving and enhancing neighborhoods, and for increasing affordable housing opportunities for extremely low, very-low, low and moderate income persons and households. It is the primary policy guide for local decision-making on all housing matters. The Housing Element also describes the City s demographic, economic and housing factors, as required by State law. 12

13 1.20 Citizen Participation The Housing Element expresses the community s housing priorities, goals, values and hopes for the future. Preparing the Element is a sizable task that involves extensive community input and the work of many individuals. Under State law, local governments must be diligent in soliciting participation by all segments of the community in this effort. During preparation of this Element Update, citizen participation was actively encouraged through the following forums: Public workshops focusing on housing needs, housing development and resources, and neighborhood quality and sustainability. Housing opinion survey. Six public hearings before the Planning Commission and two public hearings before the City Council; Posting the Draft Housing Element on the City s website; Public notices in local newspapers and flyers/posters distributed to a variety of public locations. Regular updates to a list of interested parties with links to staff reports, draft housing element and housing resources. Meetings and interviews with a variety of stakeholder groups including Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association, Supportive Housing Consortium, Executive Director of the Housing Trust Fund, Home Builders Association, Community Action Partnership, School District, Chamber of Commerce, Workforce Housing Coalition, and a representative from a consortium of mobile home park residents. Participation in the workshops and hearings from a variety of stakeholders has resulted in an improved understanding of existing housing programs and housing issues in the community, and increased public participation in the update process. Input from stakeholder groups has been instrumental in providing information for program modifications and in providing a better sense of housing issues for the decision-makers when considering new policies or programs. Appendix K provides additional details regarding community outreach efforts Consistency with State Planning Law California cities and counties must prepare housing elements as required by State law set forth in Sections to of the California Government Code. The law mandates that housing elements include an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement and development of housing. This Element fulfills that requirement and provides a detailed strategy for implementing the City s housing goals through

14 State housing goals rely on the effective implementation of housing policies at the local level. To ensure local housing policies are consistent with State law, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews local housing elements and reports its written findings to the local government. Housing elements must also be consistent with the jurisdiction s other general plan elements and must address several specific requirements regarding the element s scope and content. Table 1 summarizes State requirements and identifies the sections of the City s Housing Element where these requirements are addressed. Table 1 State Housing Element Requirements Required Housing Element Component 14 Reference I. Public Participation: Describe public outreach and how input used Appendix K, p. 272 A. Describe efforts to achieve public participation Appendix K, p. 272 B. Describe how public input was or will be used in the element Appendix K, p. 272 II. Review and Revision A. Evaluation and revision of the previous element Appendix E, p. 194 III. Housing Needs Assessment Appendix B, p. 99 A. Population and employment trends pp. 66, 71 B. Household characteristics p. 73 C. Housing stock characteristics p. 81 D. Special Housing Needs Analyses p. 107, 125 E. Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation in housing p. 133 development (incentives to promote green building and smart growth) F. Analysis of existing housing projects at-risk of being converted to nonlow p. 58 income uses G. Projected housing need, including City s share of regional housing p. 58, 64 needs (RHNA) as determined by SLOCOG IV. Sites Inventory and Analysis App. D, p. 170 A. Sites Inventory App. M, p. 298 B. Sites Inventory Analysis of Suitability and Availability p. 182, 298 C. Zoning for a variety of Housing Types pp V. Constraints on Housing App. C, p. 126 A. Governmental Constraints p. 126 B. Non-Governmental Constraints p. 163 VI. Quantified Objectives p. 65

15 VII. Implementation Programs App. F, p. 218 A. Identify adequate sites that will be made available through appropriate p. 298 action with required public services and facilities for a variety of housing types and for all income levels. B. Program to assist in the development of adequate housing for pp extremely low- to moderate income households. C. Identify, and when appropriate and possible, remove governmental p. 28 constraints to housing maintenance, improvement and development. D. Identify at least one zoning district where emergency shelters and p. 118 transitional housing are permitted by-right. E. Identify programs to conserve and improve San Luis Obispo s existing pp , 59 and affordable housing stock F. Promote housing opportunities for all persons, including reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities.. G. Identify programs to address the potential conversion of assisted p. 59 housing developments to market rate units 1.40 General Plan Consistency p. 108, 112, 150 The Housing Element is one part of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. State law requires that general plans contain an integrated and internally consistent set of goals or policies. Although the Housing Element is the primary source of information on housing policies, programs and resources, other General Plan documents also address or affect housing. By law, new development projects must be consistent with all elements of the General Plan. For example, the Land Use Element and Circulation Element set the City's policies for land use and transportation, which in turn, affect how, when and where the City's housing needs can best be met. While housing is important, it is but one of many community goals the General Plan addresses. The other elements contain policies that seek to preserve and enhance the quality of life San Luis Obispo citizens enjoy. Clean air and water, open space, parks and recreation, preservation of natural, historic and cultural resources, public services and safety are also essential community attributes. These policies are of equal importance with those of the Housing Element. This Element has been reviewed and determined to be consistent with the City s other General Plan elements, and the policies and programs in the Housing Element reflect policies and programs contained in other parts of the General Plan. Appendix H includes that evaluation. As other elements are updated or amended, the Housing Element will be reviewed to ensure general plan consistency is maintained. 15

16 1.50 What s New in This Element In 2010, San Luis Obispo, the State of California and the Nation face daunting economic challenges. A stagnant economy, higher materials costs, tighter lending standards and shrinking resources for housing have made it more difficult to produce affordable housing. Changes in State housing laws have placed greater responsibilities on local governments to address housing needs, despite diminished financial resources to do so. The updated Element includes new information, policies and programs to address these legal requirements and to address local needs and conditions: Senate Bill (SB) 2 (2007) Local Planning and Approval for Emergency Shelters and Transitional and Supportive Housing, which requires local governments to allow emergency shelters by right in at least one land use zone and limits the denial of shelters and transitional or supportive housing (Government Code (GC) Section 65583). SB 575 (2005) Strengthens legal protections for affordable housing projects and precludes local governments from denying or conditionally approving a project unless the jurisdiction has met its fair share housing needs for the planning period (amended GC Section ). SB 1087 (2006) Requires local governments and water and sewer service providers to grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include dwellings affordable to lower-income households (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2005; G.C. Section ). Assembly Bill (AB) 2348 (2004) Requires a parcel-specific land inventory and sets a default residential density to accommodate lower-income housing and provide greater residential development certainty. AB 2634 (2006) Requires the analysis of population and projected housing needs for all income levels to include an Extremely Low Income Households category (30% or less of countywide median income) (amended GC Section 65583). AB 2511 (2006) Amends several sections of general plan and housing laws and includes provisions strengthening anti-nimby protections and no-net housing loss requirements. AB 1866 (2003) Encourages the creation of second dwelling units (also known as granny flats ) by requiring local governments to ministerially consider all applications for second dwelling units. In addition, the Appendices include sections on affordable housing and community outreach, a glossary, identification of residential land resources, and housing resources to assist those seeking to plan, build, buy or rent housing in San Luis Obispo. 16

17 The Housing Element will be updated in Citizens, the Planning Commission or the City Council may propose up to four amendments to the Element each year, and those changes may be adopted by the City Council after public hearings are held. For information concerning population, housing, land use and development review in San Luis Obispo, please contact the Community Development Department at City Hall, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA , phone (805) , or access the City 17

18 1.60 Housing Element Organization The Housing Element is organized into four chapters: Introduction, Community Factors, Goals, Policies and Programs, and Quantified Objectives. These chapters summarize the demographic, physical, economic, environmental and cultural factors that shape San Luis Obispo s housing needs, and provide the policy and program map the City will follow to meet its housing needs. Given the detailed and lengthy analysis involved in the preparation of the Housing Element, supporting background material has been included as appendices. Appendices are not adopted general plan policy. They provide comprehensive information used to develop the Housing Element and contain supplementary information on housing, land resources, development constraints and other pertinent data. These appendices are: Community Profile (Appendix A) Housing Needs (Appendix B) Housing Constraints and Resources (Appendix C) Residential Land Resources (Appendix D) Review of the 2004 Housing Element Results (Appendix E) Five-Year Implementation Plan (Appendix F) 2009 Preamble and Housing Task Force Recommendations (Appendix G) General Plan Consistency Analysis (Appendix H) Public Distribution List (Appendix I) California Legislative Changes Affecting the Housing Element (Appendix J) Housing Resources and Outreach Information (Appendix K) Affordable Housing in San Luis Obispo (Appendix L) Residential Capacity Inventory (Appendix M) Glossary (Appendix N) References (Appendix O) Inclusionary Housing Requirement (Appendix P) 18

19 Council Resolutions (Appendix Q) State Certification (Appendix R) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, an assessment of potential environmental impacts resulting from the Housing Element also has been prepared and is available separately from the Community Development Department (City file No. ER ). 19

20 Chapter 2 Community Factors 2.10 Community Overview San Luis Obispo is a compact urban community blessed with rich ethnic, cultural and historical traditions. Its namesake, Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, founded in 1772, stands as the community s physical, cultural and spiritual center. With an estimated 2009 population of 44,750 people, San Luis Obispo is the largest city in terms of population in San Luis Obispo County and serves as the County seat. Situated in a valley and framed by rolling hills, the City s setting and visual character are distinctive. The morros, a series of weathered peaks that are the remnants of ancient volcanoes, transect the City and create the City s unique skyline. San Luis Obispo is home to California Polytechnic State University, Cuesta College and Camp San Luis Obispo (California Army National Guard), and is the retail, business, governmental, and transportation hub of the County. In assessing the City s housing issues and needs, many factors were considered. These factors became the foundation for the Element s preliminary goals, policies and programs. Preliminary housing goals and policies were then refined through the public review process. An overview of these factors is described below, including snapshots of the City s key demographic, economic and housing characteristics. An analysis of community factors is provided in Appendix A Demographic Snapshots San Luis Obispo s population has grown at a slow, steady pace since Looking back over the last 29 years, the City has grown at an average rate of about one percent per year, with periods of faster or slower growth reflecting national and statewide economic cycles. For example, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the City grew at an annual average rate of two percent. This was followed by a much slower rate of growth in the 1990s. Between 1990 and 1999, the City grew at annual average of only 0.3 percent, well below the General Plan s one percent growth target. Since April 2000, the City has grown a total of one percent, with the annual rate varying from a negative 0.3 percent to a positive 0.5 percent. When compared with California, the most ethnically diverse state in the nation, the City and County of San Luis Obispo are less ethnically diverse. The 2000 Census found that over 84 percent of the City is white, about five percent is Asian, with much smaller percentages of Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, other single races or persons selfidentifying with two or more races. Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin are classified separately under the 2000 Census and can be of any race. About 12 percent of the City s population is Hispanic, compared with 16 and 33 percent in the County and State, respectively. 20

21 Many segments of the City s population have difficulty finding affordable housing due to their economic, physical or sociological circumstances. These special needs groups may include the elderly, families, single parent households, people with disabilities, very low and low-income residents, and the homeless. In 2008, City households earned less, on the average, than their County and State counterparts. The median household income was $39,827, compared with $53,166 for the County and $55,734 Statewide. This reflects the high percentage of student households in San Luis Obispo. Many students attending California State Polytechnic University (Cal Poly) and Cuesta College are nominally classified as lower income, although they often have significant financial resources through parental support. While median City household incomes were less than many other areas of coastal California, median City housing costs were higher than both the County and State. Housing costs in San Luis Obispo have risen sharply in recent years while average household incomes have risen slowly or remained steady. Despite the housing market s downturn in 2008 and 2009, there is a continuing disparity between household income and housing costs which forces many to seek housing outside the City. San Luis Obispo contains the largest concentration of jobs in the County. During workdays, the City s population increases to an estimated 70,000 persons Housing Snapshots City housing costs have risen dramatically since Median City housing costs peaked in 2006 at $655,851, an increase of 24 percent. Since 2006, median housing cost declined to $564,213 in By comparison, median housing costs in the County for the same period were $580,800 and $470,233, respectively. During this period, housing cost increases continued to outpace household income increases. As a result, in 2008 only about one-half of San Luis Obispo households could afford to buy a median-priced home based on their income alone in In , an economic recession has dramatically affected housing production and sales. Compared with 2007, the number of City building permits for new housing issued in 2008 was down 40 percent, and sales of new and pre-owned housing in the six-county Southern California region in January 2009 were at their lowest level since 1988, according to Data Quick Information Systems. Slightly more city residents rent than own housing. Rental housing costs also have increased, although not as dramatically as for sale housing. In the past 18 years, the rate of housing production in San Luis Obispo slightly exceeded the rate of population growth. Between 1990 and 2008, the City added about 2,700 residents an increase of about seven percent. During the same period, the City s 21

22 housing stock grew by about 1,400 units an increase of about eight percent. San Luis Obispo s housing market is strongly influenced by Cal Poly University and Cuesta College enrollment. On-campus student housing is limited, although the completed construction of 2600 beds on the Cal Poly Campus should help with rental housing availability. Cuesta College does not offer on-campus housing. Most of the area s students live off campus, in single family or multi-family rental units in the City of San Luis Obispo. Under City zoning regulations, up to five adult students can live together in a house and share rental costs. Consequently, college students can often outcompete non-student households for rental housing in areas that were historically singlefamily residential neighborhoods. Just over three quarters of the City s housing stock was built before Despite its age, the City s housing stock is generally in fair to good condition, with little outward evidence of substandard or blighted conditions. Illegal garage conversions and bootleg second units in low- and medium-density residential neighborhoods, lack of property maintenance, noise and parking have been the focus of citizen complaints and city code enforcement actions. While San Luis Obispo City appears mostly built out, significant areas of developable land remain that could help meet existing and future housing needs. A residential capacity inventory conducted by the City in 2009 indicated that within city limits, there are about 426 acres of vacant land, plus about 214 acres of underutilized land with additional development potential. Outside the existing city limits but within the City s Urban Reserve, there are about 553 acres of vacant land and about 237 acres of underutilized land. The inventory shows a total residential development capacity of about 4100 dwellings in 782 acres of vacant and underutilized land within the City s Urban Reserve. According to the California State Department of Finance, California s housing growth in 2008 and 2009 continued a recent trend by declining again from the previous year. Since peaking in 2005, when the state was estimated to have added 197,707 new housing units, there has been a steady decline in housing construction. In 2006, the state added 172,604 units; in 2007, there were 131,912 units built; then last year only 86,745 units were built, the smallest increase in the number of new housing units since Neighborhood Snapshots Code enforcement, neighborhood compatibility and property maintenance complaints in low- and medium-density residential neighborhoods have increased dramatically in recent years. Between 1994 and 2008, Community Development Department staff responded to a steadily increasing number of building and zoning code violations, garage conversions, substandard housing, high-occupancy residential uses, fence height, trailers, noise disturbances, parking and land use violations. During this period, the number of 22

23 enforcement requests grew from 386 in 1994 to 556 complaints in 2008, an increase of 44 percent. Neighborhood preservation is addressed by several City departments. In 2000, the Office of Neighborhood Services was established as part of the Police Department to address primarily parking, property maintenance and noise violations. San Luis Obispo became a town in It has evolved from a small rural village of just over 2,200 people in 1880 to a vibrant metropolitan area of over 44,000 residents in Its diverse neighborhoods reflect that evolution in terms of land use, population density, street width and appearance, applicable development codes and architectural style. The oldest neighborhoods are close to the downtown area, roughly bordered by State Highway 101, the railroad tracks and High Street. The newest neighborhoods are in the south and southwest areas of the City. San Luis Obispo has a strong sense of place. It began with the founding of Mission San Luis Obispo De Tolosa in 1772, and before that, was home to a large Chumash settlement, attracted to the area due to its mild climate and abundant resources. San Luis Obispo has been shaped by persons of many backgrounds, including: Native Americans, Spanish, Mexican, Chinese, English, French, German, Irish, Portuguese, Swiss-Italian, Japanese, Filipino, and many others. The community takes pride in its rich, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural heritage, and its many historic homes and commercial buildings. Architectural and historic preservation are important considerations in many neighborhoods. San Luis Obispo s neighborhoods traditionally have been made up mostly of singlefamily housing. Low-density, detached single-family housing is still the City s predominant residential land use by land area. Of the roughly 11 square miles of zoned land, about 23 percent is zoned for low-density residential development. By contrast, about 13 percent is zoned for multi-family residential use (Medium, Medium-High, and High density residential uses). 23

24 Chapter 3 GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 3.10 Overview This chapter includes the Housing Implementation Plan for the period January 2010 to December The following goals, policies and programs are based on an assessment of the City s needs, opportunities and constraints; an evaluation of its existing policies and programs; and community input from the 2003 Housing Element Update Task Force, community groups, public hearings, workshops and correspondence Summary of New Programs Continued high housing costs, sharply reduced development of new housing, and the State's economic recession are making it far more difficult for many households to meet their housing needs today than it was in 2004 when the Housing Element was last updated. In 2009, housing needs continue to grow, while the economic resources to meet those needs have become scarce. Consequently, our housing policies and programs have been revised, and new programs added, to expand our toolkit and resources to meet housing needs. New housing programs in the Element will: Consider increasing the allowed residential densities in multi-family residential zones and some commercial zone. Target zones are the C-D (Downtown Commercial), C-N (Neighborhood Commercial), and O (Office) zones. (Program 6.25) Broaden the ways developers can meet inclusionary housing requirements For example, accept land donation with capacity to develop the required number of units rather than requiring land to appraise for amount due, allow developers to work directly with existing housing developments to secure units, etc. (Program 2.5) Evaluate and consider amending housing affordability standards to include a Workforce Housing (between 120% and 160% of area median income) income category. Allow use of the Affordable Housing Fund for projects addressing this income group in addition to Extremely Low, Very-Low, Low and Moderate Income households, when appropriate. (Program 2.17) Revise Affordable housing standards to establish a methodology for adjusting the standards and to address homeowners association fees (i.e. currently, prices and income are set regardless of whether the deed restricted unit has an HOA fee). (Program 2.13) Address Senate Bill (SB) 2 by identifying a zone or zones where homeless shelters are allowed by right; and develop objective standards for siting and operating homeless shelters. (Program 8.19) 24

25 In response to SB 520; add a program to expand accommodation for disabled persons, including establishing a City process to address universal access requests. (Programs 8.22 and 8.23) In response to SB 2280, update the City s standards to ensure compliance with the State density bonus law. (Program 6.24) Identify a new extremely-low income category to encourage supportive housing and single room occupancy units and housing for low wage earning households in concert with State law (Assembly Bill 2634). (Policy 2.1; Program 6.18) Include a program to help build the capacities of non-profit organizations, faith based organizations and the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo to assist in the production of affordable and special needs housing. (Program 3.14) Considering amending the General Plan to address SLO County efforts to develop housing on former County General Hospital property. (Program 6.23) This strategy combines requirements and incentives to increase production of both affordable and market-rate housing through Like many small cities with limited public funds for housing, the City has relied on the private sector to meet a portion of its affordable housing needs. Increasingly, local governments are finding it necessary to assist developers if adequate housing is to be built at prices that citizens can afford. Across the U.S., it has become apparent that the most effective programs involve cooperative public/private efforts to produce affordable housing. This requires that the City take a more active role in planning, funding and promoting affordable housing than has been its practice. This Housing Element builds upon programs introduced in 2004 to promote affordable housing and expands incentives for affordable housing construction. For example, the City will use Affordable Housing Funds generated by the Inclusionary Housing program to help fund affordable housing developments; and continue to use Community Development Block Grant funds to pay the salary and benefits for a Housing Programs Manager who actively promotes and coordinates affordable housing programs by soliciting grants, loans, and other forms of assistance Goals, Policies and Programs. This chapter describes the City's housing goals, policies and programs, which together form the blueprint for housing actions during the Housing Element s planning period. Goals, policies and programs are listed in top-to-bottom order, with goals at the top and being the most general statements, working down to programs, the most specific statements of intent. Here is how the three policy levels differ: 25

26 Goals are the desired results that the City will attempt to reach over the long term. They are general expressions of community values or preferred end states, and therefore, are abstract in nature and are rarely fully attained. While it may not be possible to attain all goals during this Element's planning period, they will, nonetheless, be the basis for City policies and actions during this period. Policies are specific statements that will guide decision-making. Policies serve as the directives to developers, builders, design professionals, decision makers and others who will initiate or review new development projects. Some policies stand alone as directives, but others require that additional actions be taken. These additional actions are listed under "programs" below. Most policies have a time frame that fits within this Element's planning period. In this context, shall means the policy is mandatory; should or will indicate the policy should be followed unless there are compelling or contradictory reasons to do otherwise. Programs are the core of the City s housing strategy. These include on-going programs, procedural changes, general plan changes, rezonings or other actions that help achieve housing goals. Programs translate goals and policies into actions. Goal 1 Safety. Provide safe, decent shelter for all residents. Policies 1.1 Assist those citizens unable to obtain safe shelter on their own. 1.2 Support and inform the public about fair housing laws and programs that allow equal housing access for all city residents. 1.3 Maintain a level of housing code enforcement sufficient to correct unsafe, unsanitary or illegal conditions and to preserve the inventory of safe housing. Programs 1.4 Provide financial assistance to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income homeowners and renters for the rehabilitation of rental housing units, single-family houses or mobile homes using Federal, State and local housing funds, such as Community Development Block Grant Funds. 1.5 Continue code enforcement to expedite the removal of illegal or unsafe dwellings, to eliminate hazardous site or property conditions, and resolve chronic building safety problems. 1.6 Enact a Rental Inspection Program to improve the condition of the City s housing stock. 26

27 1.7 Continue to support local and regional solutions to homelessness by funding programs such as the Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter and The Prado Day Center. 1.8 Create an educational campaign for owners of older residences informing them of ways to reduce the seismic hazards commonly found in such structures, and encouraging them to undertake seismic upgrades. Goal 2 Affordability. Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the City s quantified objectives. Policies 2.1 Income Levels For Affordable Housing households. For purposes of this Housing Element, affordable housing is that which is obtainable by a household with a particular income level, as further described in the City s Affordable Housing Standards. Housing affordable to Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate income persons or households shall be considered affordable housing. Income levels are defined as follows: Extremely low 30% or less of County median household income Very low: 31 to 50% of County median household income. Low: 51% to 80% of County median household income. Moderate: 81% to 120% of County median household income. Above moderate: 121% or more of County median household income. 2.2 Index of Affordability. The Index of Affordability shall be whether the monthly cost of housing fits within the following limits: For extremely low income households, not more than 25% of monthly income. For very low- and low-income households, not more than 25% of monthly income. For moderate income households, not more than 30% of monthly income. For above-moderate income households, no index. These indices may be modified or expanded if the State of California modifies or expands its definition of affordability for these income groups. 2.3 For housing to qualify as "affordable" under the provisions of this Element, guarantees must be presented that ownership or rental housing units will remain affordable for the longest period allowed by State law, or for a shorter period under an equity-sharing or housing rehabilitation agreement with the City. 27

28 2.4 Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the planning period. These proportions are: extremely low income, 11 percent, very low income, 12 percent; low income, 16 percent; moderate income, 19 percent; and above moderate income, 42 percent. Programs 2.5 Amend the Inclusionary Housing Requirement, Tables 2 and 2A, to provide more ways for commercial development projects to meet the requirements, such as by providing land in an amount sufficient to accommodate the number of inclusionary housing units required by the ordinance, or by converting off-site units to affordable units through deed restrictions. 2.6 Prepare criteria to manage the Affordable Housing Fund so that the fund serves as a sustainable resource for supporting affordable housing development. The fund shall serve as a source of both grant funding and below-market financing for affordable housing projects; and funds shall be used to support a wide variety of housing types at the following income levels: extremely low, very low, low, and moderate, but with a focus on production efficiency to maximize housing benefits for the City s financial investment, an to support high-quality housing projects that would not be feasible without Affordable Housing Fund support. 2.7 Review existing and proposed building, planning, engineering and fire policies and standards to determine whether changes are possible that could assist the production of affordable housing, or that would encourage preservation of housing rather than conversion to non-residential uses, provided such changes would not conflict with other General Plan policies. Such periodic reviews will seek to remove regulations that have been superseded, are redundant or are no longer needed. 2.8 Establish permit streamlining procedures to speed up the processing of applications, construction permits, and water and sewer service priorities for affordable housing projects. City staff and commissions shall give such projects priority in allocating work assignments, scheduling, conferences and hearings, and in preparing and issuing reports and water and sewer service allocations. 2.9 Pursue outside funding sources for the payment of City impact fees so that new dwellings that meet the City s affordable housing standards can mitigate their facility and service impacts without adversely affecting housing affordability To the extent outside funding sources can be identified to offset impacts on City funds, exempt dwellings that meet the moderate income, Affordable Housing Standards from planning, building and engineering development review and permit fees, including water meter installation fee. Maintain exemptions for extremely-low, very-low and lowincome households. 28

29 2.11 Help coordinate public and private sector actions to encourage the development of housing that meets the City s housing needs Assist with the issuance of bonds, tax credit financing, loan underwriting or other financial tools to help develop or preserve affordable units through various programs, including, but not limited to: (1) below-market financing through the SLO County Housing Trust Fund and (2) subsidized mortgages for extremely low, very-low, low- and moderate income persons and first-time home buyers, and (3) self-help or sweat equity homeowner housing Amend Affordable Housing Standards to establish a methodology for adjusting affordable housing standards and secure Council approval. Consider incorporating HOA fees and a standard allowance for utilities in the calculation for affordable rents and home sales prices In conjunction with the Housing Authority and other local housing agencies, provide ongoing technical assistance and education to tenants, property owners and the community at large on the need to preserve at-risk units as well as the available tools to help them do so In conjunction with local housing providers and the local residential design community, provide technical assistance to the public, builders, design professionals and developers regarding design strategies to achieve affordable housing Evaluate the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements and the effect of Table 2A on the City s ability to provide affordable housing in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, per Policy The City will evaluate and consider including a workforce level of affordability in its Affordable Housing Standards to increase housing options in the City for those making between 120 percent and 160 percent of the San Luis Obispo County median income. This affordability category cannot be used to meet inclusionary housing ordinance requirements and is not eligible for City Affordable Housing Funds Evaluate and consider increasing residential densities on appropriate sites for housing affordable to extremely low income households. Goal 3 Housing Conservation. Conserve existing housing and prevent the loss of safe housing and the displacement of current occupants. Policies 3.1 Encourage the rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of sound or rehabitable housing rather than demolition. Demolition of non-historic housing may be permitted where 29

30 conservation of existing housing would preclude the achievement of other housing objectives or adopted City goals. 3.2 Discourage the removal or replacement of housing affordable to extremely low, verylow, low- and moderate income households, and avoid permit approvals, private development, municipal actions or public projects that remove or adversely impact such housing unless such actions are necessary to achieve General Plan objectives and: (1) it can be demonstrated that rehabilitation of lower-cost units at risk of replacement is financially or physically infeasible, or (2) an equivalent number of new units comparable or better in affordability and amenities to those being replaced is provided, or (3) the project will correct substandard, blighted or unsafe housing; and (4) removal or replacement will not adversely affect housing which is already designated, or is determined to qualify for designation as a historic resource. 3.3 Encourage seismic upgrades of older dwellings to reduce the risk of bodily harm and the loss of housing in an earthquake. 3.4 Encourage the construction, preservation, rehabilitation or expansion of residential hotels, group homes, integrated community apartments, and single-room occupancy dwellings. 3.5 Preserve historic homes and other types of historic residential buildings, historic districts and unique or landmark neighborhood features. 3.6 Preserve the fabric, amenities, yards (i.e. setbacks), and overall character and quality of life of established neighborhoods. 3.7 Support creative strategies for the rehabilitation and adaptation and reuse of residential, commercial, and industrial structures for housing. Programs 3.8 Adopt an ordinance that implements policy 3.2 to discourage removal or replacement of affordable housing. 3.9 Correct unsafe, unsanitary or illegal housing conditions, improve accessibility and energy efficiency and improve neighborhoods by collaborating with agencies offering rehabilitation programs. City will use State or Federal grants or other housing funds to implement the program and provide services such as home weatherization, repair and universal access improvements Preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) and the Downtown Planning Area by continuing the "no net housing loss" program so that as of the baseline date of March 30, 2004, the number of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings added. 30

31 3.11 Identify residential properties and districts eligible for local, State or Federal historic listing and prepare guidelines and standards to help property owners repair, rehabilitate and improve properties in a historically and architecturally sensitive manner To encourage housing rehabilitation, amend the Inclusionary Housing Requirements to allow a reduced term of affordability for rehabilitated units, to the extent allowed by State or Federal law, with a minimum term of three years and in proportion to the level of City assistance Establish a monitoring and early warning system to track affordable housing units at-risk of being converted to market rate housing Working with non-profit organizations, faith-based organizations, or the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, the City will encourage rehabilitation of residential, commercial or industrial buildings to expand extremely low, very-low, low or moderate income rental housing opportunities. Goal 4 Mixed-Income Housing. Preserve and accommodate existing and new mixedincome neighborhoods and seek to prevent neighborhoods or housing types that are segregated by economic status. Policies 4.1 Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing that is affordable to various economic strata should be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves. The mix should be comparable to the relative percentages of extremely low, very-low, low, moderate and above-moderate income households in the City s quantified objectives. 4.2 Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and residential condominium projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in appearance and basic quality to market-rate units. 4.3 Extremely-low and very low-income housing, such as that developed by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo or other housing providers, may be located in any zone that allows housing, and should be dispersed throughout the City rather than concentrated in one neighborhood or zone. In general, 23 dwellings should be the maximum number of extremely low or very-low-income units developed on any one site. 4.4 In its discretionary actions, housing programs and activities, the City shall affirmatively further fair housing and promote equal housing opportunities for persons of all economic segments of the community. 31

32 Program 4.5 Review new development proposals for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the mixed-income policies. Goal 5 Housing Variety and Tenure. Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure, and style of dwellings. Policies 5.1 Encourage the integration of appropriately scaled, special needs housing into developments or neighborhoods of conventional housing. 5.2 Encourage mixed-use residential/commercial projects to include live-work and work-live units where housing and offices or other commercial uses are compatible. 5.3 Encourage the development of housing above ground-level retail stores and offices to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently. 5.4 In general, housing developments of twenty (20) or more units should provide a variety of dwelling types, sizes or forms of tenure. Program 5.5 Review new developments for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the housing variety and tenure policies. Goal 6 Housing Production. Plan for new housing to meet the full range of community housing needs. Policies 6.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 1,589 dwelling units between January 2007 and December 2014 in accordance with the assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation. 6.2 New commercial developments in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) shall include housing, unless the City makes one of the following findings: A) Housing is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of residents or employees; or B) The property s shape, size, topography or other physical factor makes construction of 32

33 new dwellings infeasible. 6.3 If City services must be rationed to development projects, residential projects will be given priority over non-residential projects. As required by SB 1087, housing affordable to lower income households will be given first priority. 6.4 City costs of providing services to housing development will be minimized. Other than for existing housing programs encouraging housing affordable to extremely low, verylow and low income persons, the City will not make new housing more affordable by shifting costs to existing residents. 6.5 When sold, purchased or redeveloped for public or private uses, City-owned properties within the urban reserve shall include housing as either a freestanding project or part of a mixed-use development where land is suitable and appropriate for housing. 6.6 Property located behind the former County General Hospital shall be designated a Special Considerations zone and may be considered suitable for residential development after further analysis and environmental review, provided that development be limited to site areas with average slopes of less than 20 percent, that approximately one-half of the total site area be dedicated for open space and/or public use, and that an additional water tank be provided if determined necessary to serve new development. 6.7 Support the redevelopment of excess public and private utility properties for housing where appropriately located and consistent with the General Plan. Programs 6.8 Maintain the General Plan and Residential Growth Management Regulations (SLOMC 17.88) exemption for new housing in the Downtown Core (C-D zone), and new housing in other zones that is enforceably restricted for extremely-low, very low, low- and moderate income households, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Standards. In expansion areas, the overall number of units built must conform to the City-approved phasing plan. 6.9 Amend the Zoning Regulations and Parking Access and Management Plan to allow flexible parking regulations for housing development, especially in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), including the possibilities of flexible use of city parking facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate, and reduced or no parking requirements where appropriate guarantees limit occupancies to persons without motor vehicles or who provide proof of reserved, off-site parking. Such developments may be subject to requirements for parking use fees, use limitations and enforcement provisions Provide incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), particularly in mixed-use developments. Incentives may include flexible density, use, 33

34 height, or parking provisions, fee reductions, and streamlined development review and permit processing Specific plans for the Orcutt Expansion Area and any new expansion area identified shall include R-3 and R-4 zoned land to ensure sufficient land is designated at appropriate densities to accommodate the development of extremely low, very-low and low income dwellings. These plans shall include sites suitable for subsidized rental housing and affordable rental and owner-occupied dwellings, and programs to support the construction of dwellings rather than payment of in-lieu housing fees. Such sites shall be integrated within neighborhoods of market-rate housing and shall be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood Consider General Plan amendments to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for higher-density, infill or mixed use housing where land development patterns are suitable and where impact to Low-Density Residential areas is minimal. For example, areas to be considered for possible rezoning include, but are not limited to the following sites (shown in Figure 1 and further described in Appendix D, Table D-2): A. Portions of South Broad Street Corridor and Little Italy area B. 145 Grand Avenue (Pacheco School) C San Luis Drive (rezone vacant and underutilized School District property) D Johnson Avenue (vacant School District property) E South Higuera Street (former P.G.&E. yard) F Vachell Lane (vehicle storage) G. 313 South Street (McCarthy Tank and Steel) H. 173 Buckley Road (Avila Ranch) I Johnson Avenue (adjacent to County Health Department) J Broad Street (Plumbers and Steamfitters Union) K Los Osos Valley Road (Pacific Beach High School) L Block of Boulevard Del Campo (adjacent to Sinsheimer Park) M Los Osos Valley Road 6.13 Continue to support the SLO County Housing Trust fund s efforts to provide belowmarket financing and technical assistance to affordable housing developers as a way to increase affordable housing production in the City of San Luis Obispo 6.14 Encourage residential development through infill development and densification within City Limits and in designated expansion areas over new annexation of land. 34

35 Figure 1 - Areas to be Considered for Possible Rezoning Seek opportunities with other public agencies and public utilities to identify, assemble, develop, redevelop and recycle surplus land for housing, and to convert vacant or underutilized public, utility or institutional buildings to housing Develop multifamily housing design standards to promote innovative, attractive, and well-integrated, higher density housing. Developments that meet these standards shall be eligible for a streamlined level of planning and development review. Developments that include a significant commitment to affordable housing may also be eligible to receive density bonuses, parking reductions and other development incentives, including City financial assistance Complete Orcutt Area Specific Plan and consider final City approval to annex the Orcutt specific planning area by December Financially assist in the development of housing affordable to extremely low, very-low, low- or moderate income households during the planning period using State, Federal and local funding sources, with funding priority given to projects that result in the maximum housing benefits for the lowest household income levels.

36 6.19 Actively seek new revenue sources, including State, Federal and private/non-profit sources, and financing mechanisms to assist affordable housing development for extremely low, very low and low or moderate income households and first- time homebuyers Update the Community Design Guidelines and amend SLOMC Chapter 2.48 to exempt the construction, relocation, rehabilitation or remodeling of up to 4 dwellings of up to 1200 square feet each from Architectural Review Commission review. New multi-unit housing may be allowed with Minor or Incidental or staff level architectural review, unless the dwellings are located on a sensitive or historically sensitive site Assist in the production of long-term affordable housing by identifying vacant or underutilized City-owned property suitable for housing, and dedicate public property, where feasible and appropriate, for such purposes Community Development staff will prepare property profiles describing properties suitable for housing to facilitate public or private development and make this information publicly available Evaluate and consider amending the General Plan to designate the 46 acres associated with the former County General Hospital as a Special Considerations zone, suitable for housing development on areas of the site of less than 20 percent average slope, provided that open space dedication and public improvements are part of the project Update the Affordable Housing Incentives (Chapter 17.90, SLOMC) and Zoning Regulations to ensure density bonus incentives are consistent with State Law Evaluate and consider increasing the residential density allowed in the Neighborhood- Commercial (CN), Office (O) and Downtown Commercial (CD) zoning districts. The City will evaluate allowing up to 24 units per acre in the CN and O zones, and up to 72 units per acre in the CD zone, twice the current density allowed in these areas Evaluate how underlying lot patterns in the City s multi-family zones affect the City s ability to meet housing production policies. If warranted, consider setting a minimum number of dwellings on each legal lot in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones, regardless of lot size, when other property development standards, such as parking, height limits and setbacks can be met To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate Consider changes to the Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU)) Ordinance, including possible incentives such as SDU design templates, flexible development standards, fee reductions or deferrals, or other measures to encourage the construction of SDUs where allowed by zoning. 36

37 6.29 Evaluate and consider adopting Subdivision and Zoning Regulations changes to support small lot subdivisions, ownership bungalow court development, eliminating the one acre minimum lot area for PD overlay zoning, and other alternatives to conventional subdivision design. Goal 7 Neighborhood Quality. Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability and owner occupancy, and improve neighborhood appearance, function and sense of community. Policies 7.1 Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. 7.2 Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on-site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed-use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core. 7.3 Within established neighborhoods, housing should not be located on sites designated in the General Plan for parks or open space. 7.4 Within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integral part of an existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools and shopping areas. 7.5 The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent the formation of safe, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhoods. 7.6 Housing shall be sited to enhance safety along neighborhood streets and in other public and semi-public areas. 7.7 The physical design of neighborhoods and dwellings should promote walking and bicycling and preserve open spaces and views. Programs 7.8 Implement varied strategies to ensure residents are aware of and able to participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhoods early in the planning process. 7.9 Identify specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends and opportunities for improvements. Work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals to address concerns. 37

38 7.10 Help fund neighborhood improvements, including sidewalks, traffic calming devices, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and street lighting to improve aesthetics, safety and accessibility Continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies, including parking districts, to address the lack of on- and off-street parking in residential areas. Goal 8 Special Housing Needs. Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing needs. Policies 8.1 Encourage housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations, utilizing universal design. 8.2 Preserve manufactured housing or mobile home parks and support changes in these forms of tenure only if such changes provide residents with greater long-term security or comparable housing in terms of quality, cost, and livability. 8.3 Encourage manufactured homes in Expansion Areas by: A) When the City considers adopting new specific plans, including policies that support owner-occupied manufactured home parks with amenities such as greenbelts, recreation facilities, and shopping services within a master planned community setting. Such parks could be specifically designed to help address the needs of those with mobility and transportation limitations. B) Establishing lot sizes, setback, and parking guidelines that allow for relatively dense placement of manufactured homes within the master planned neighborhood. C) Locating manufactured home parks near public transit facilities or provide public transportation services to the manufactured home parks to minimize the need for residents to own automobiles. 8.4 Encourage Cal Poly University to continue to develop on-campus student housing to meet existing and future needs and to lessen pressure on City housing supply and transportation systems. 8.5 Strengthen the role of on-campus housing by encouraging Cal Poly University to require entering freshmen students to live on campus during their first year. 8.6 Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus. Until that is 38

39 possible, they should be located in Medium-High and High Density residential zones near the campus. 8.7 Encourage Cal Poly University to develop and maintain faculty and staff housing, consistent with the General Plan 8.8 Disperse special needs living facilities throughout the City where public transit and commercial services are available, rather than concentrating them in one district. 8.9 Support continued efforts to implement the document The Path Home: San Luis Obispo County s 10 Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness Encourage a variety of housing types that accommodate persons with disabilities and promote aging in place, including a goal of visitability in new residential units, with an emphasis on first-floor accessibility to the maximum extent feasible. Programs 8.11 As funding allows, support local and regional solutions to meeting the needs of the homeless and continue to support, jointly with other agencies, shelters for the homeless and for displaced women and children Continue the mobile home rent stabilization program to minimize increases in the cost of mobile home park rents Identify sites in specified expansion areas suitable for tenant-owned mobile-home parks, cooperative or limited equity housing, manufactured housing, self-help housing, or other types of housing that meet special needs Advocate developing more housing and refurbishing campus housing at Cal Poly University Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups Jointly develop and implement a student housing plan and "good neighbor program" with Cal Poly State University, Cuesta College and City residents. The program would seek to improve communication and cooperation between the City and the schools, set oncampus student housing objectives and establish clear, effective standards for student housing in residential neighborhoods Provide public educational information at the Community Development Department public counter on universal design concepts in new construction. 39

40 8.18 Solicit input on the zoning ordinance provisions for homeless shelters from service agencies that work with extremely-low income persons and the homeless or persons/families at-risk of homelessness such as the Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC), the Department of Social Services of the County of San Luis Obispo, and the Leadership Council for the 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness Within one year of Housing Element adoption, update the Zoning Ordinance to allow homeless shelters by right provided they are consistent with the ministerial review standards identified in State law. The City will establish objective standards with input from service agencies to regulate the following, as permitted under SB 2, including: A) The maximum number of beds/persons permitted; B) Parking based on demonstrated need but that does not exceed parking requirements for other comparable uses in the same zone; C) The size/location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas; D) The provision of onsite management; E) The proximity of other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart; F) The length of stay; G) Lighting; and H) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing: Continue to allow the establishment of transitional and supportive housing that functions as residential uses in residential zones consistent with similar residential uses Identify properties (land, retail or commercial space, motels, apartments, housing units, mobile home parks) that can be acquired and converted to affordable permanent housing and permanent supportive housing for homeless persons and families Update the Community Design Guidelines code to include universal access standards such as at-grade threshold entry for ground floor dwellings, accessible exterior path of travel, accessible interior path of travel for ground floor dwellings (wider hallways and doorways), an accessible common room (in addition to kitchen), an accessible half- or full bathroom on the ground floor Consult with service agencies that work with the disabled and prepare and adopt a program addressing reasonable accommodation to land use and zoning decisions and procedures regulating the siting, funding, development and use of housing for persons with disabilities Consider addition of an overlay zone to existing and future mobile home and trailer park sites to provide constructive notice that additional requirements, such as rent stabilization and a mobile home park conversion ordinance may apply. 40

41 Goal 9 Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Design. As part of its overall commitment to improving quality of life for its citizens and to maintaining environmental quality, the City encourages housing that is resource-conserving, healthful, economical to live in, environmentally benign, and recyclable when demolished. Sustainable or green housing programs help reduce the life cycle costs of housing, saving homeowners or renters utilities costs and extending their housing budgets. Moreover, the initial costs of green construction measures or improvements often pay for themselves over time in utility cost savings. Policies 9.1 Residential developments should promote sustainability in their design, placement, and use. Sustainability can be promoted through a variety of housing strategies, including the following: A) Maximize use of renewable, recycled-content, and recycled materials, and minimize use of building materials that require high levels of energy to produce or that cause significant, adverse environmental impacts. B) Incorporate renewable energy features into new homes, including passive solar design, solar hot water, solar power, and natural ventilation and cooling. C) Minimize thermal island effects through reduction of heat-absorbing pavement and increased tree shading. D) Avoid building materials that may contribute to health problems through the release of gasses or glass fibers into indoor air. E) Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out, for both the mental and physical health of residents. F) Design dwellings economical to live in because of reduced utility bills, low cost maintenance and operation, and improved occupant health. G) Use construction materials and methods that maximize the recyclability of a building s parts. H) Educate public, staff, and builders to the advantages and approaches to sustainable design, and thereby develop consumer demand for sustainable housing. I) City will consider adopting a sustainable development rating system, such as the LEED or Green Globes program. 9.2 Residential site, subdivision, and neighborhood designs should be coordinated to make residential sustainability work. Some ways to do this include: A) Design subdivisions to maximize solar access for each dwelling and site. B) Design sites so residents have usable outdoor space with access to both sun and shade. C) Streets and access ways should minimize pavement devoted to vehicular use. D) Use neighborhood retention basins to purify street runoff prior to its entering creeks. Retention basins should be designed to be visually attractive as well as functional. Fenced-off retention basins should be avoided. 41

42 E) Encourage cluster development with dwellings grouped around significantly-sized, shared open space in return for City approval of smaller individual lots. F) Treat public streets as landscaped parkways, using continuous plantings at least six feet wide and where feasible, median planters to enhance, define, and to buffer residential neighborhoods of all densities from the effects of vehicle traffic. 9.3 Preserve the physical neighborhood qualities in the Downtown Planning Area that contribute to sustainability. Some ways to do this include: A) Maintain the overall scale, density and architectural character of older neighborhoods surrounding the Downtown Core. B) Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of historically designated housing stock. 9.4 To promote energy conservation and a cleaner environment, encourage the development of dwellings with energy-efficient designs, utilizing passive and active solar features, and the use of energy-saving techniques that exceed minimums prescribed by State law. 9.5 Actively promote water conservation through housing and site design to help moderate the cost of housing. Programs 9.6 Educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies on energy conservation issues, including the City s energy conservation policies and instruct that they work with applicants to achieve the housing goals that conserve energy. 9.7 Evaluate solar siting and access regulations to determine if they provide assurance of long-term solar access for new or remodeled housing and for adjacent properties, consistent with historic preservation guidelines, and revise regulations found to be inadequate. 9.8 Adopt Low-impact Development (LID) Standards, including street and access way standards that reduce the amount of paving devoted to automobiles. 9.9 Adopt an ordinance with requirements and incentives to increase the production of green housing units and projects and require use of sustainable and/or renewable materials, water and energy technologies (such as, but not limited to solar, wind, or thermal). 42

43 9.10 Promote building materials reuse and recycling in site development and residential construction, including flexible standards for use of salvaged, recycled, and green building materials. To help accomplish this, the City will implement a construction and demolition debris recycling program (as described in Chapter 8.05 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code). Goal 10 Local Preference. Maximize affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in San Luis Obispo while seeking to balance job growth and housing supply. Policies 10.1 Administer City housing programs and benefits, such as First Time Homebuyer Assistance or affordable housing lotteries, to give preference to: 1) persons living or working in the City or within the City s Urban Reserve, and 2) persons living in San Luis Obispo County Cal Poly State University and Cuesta College should actively work with the City and community organizations to create positive environments around the Cal Poly Campus by: A) Establishing standards for appropriate student densities in neighborhoods near Campus; B) Promoting homeownership for academic faculty and staff in Low-Density Residential neighborhoods in the northern part of the City; and C) Encouraging and participating in the revitalization of degraded neighborhoods. Programs 10.3 Work with the County of San Luis Obispo to mitigate housing impacts on the City due to significant expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the City. Such mitigation might include, for example, County participation and support for Inclusionary Housing Programs Encourage residential developers to promote their projects within the San Luis Obispo housing market area (San Luis Obispo County) first Advocate the establishment of a link between enrollment and the expansion of campus housing programs at Cal Poly University to reduce pressure on the City's housing supply Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for State legislation that would: 1) provide funding to help Cal Poly University provide adequate on-campus student housing, and 2) allow greater flexibility for State universities and community colleges to enter into public-private partnerships to construct student housing. Goal 11 Suitability. Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for that purpose. 43

44 Policies 11.1 Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, give preference to residential use. Changes in land use designation from residential to non-residential should be discouraged Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open space or parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigatable geological or flood risks, or wild fire dangers, and on sites subject to unacceptable levels of man-made hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazards, traffic noise or hazards, odors or incompatible neighboring uses. Program 11.3 The City will adopt measures ensuring the ability of legal, conforming non-residential uses to continue where new housing is proposed on adjacent or nearby sites. 44

45 3.40 Implementation Tools Table 2 Resources/Incentives Available For Housing Activities A variety of federal, state and local programs and resources are available to help implement the City s housing goals and activities. These include both financial resources, as well as in-kind incentives that help address housing needs. Table 2 lists the financial resources, incentives, and other tools that have been available to help address housing needs. Availability of the resources is contingent on continued funding and is subject to change. Furthermore, on-going economic uncertainties and budgetary constraints at all government levels have curtailed many housing grant and loan programs. While funding has been frozen for several programs listed below, the resources continue to be listed in anticipation that funding will be renewed for some programs. Resource/Incentive Description Eligible Activities City of San Luis Obispo Affordable Housing Fund Development Services Fee Waivers Impact Fee Waivers Density Bonus Local Resources In-lieu fees paid by developers to meet inclusionary housing requirements. Residential development projects that meet City affordable housing standards for extremely low, very low- and low-income households are exempt from all fees related to planning, engineering and building review, processing and permits, and water and sewer meter hookups. Projects with a combination of marketrate and affordable units receive the fee waiver on a per-unit basis. Citywide development impact fees are waived for affordable residential units that: 1) exceed the minimum required under inclusionary housing standards, or 2) are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, other government agencies, or notfor-profit housing agencies. The City allows an increase in residential density which varies based on the type of affordable housing (extremely low, very low, low, or moderate income) and the percentage of total dwellings.. Any expense in support of affordable housing development, subject to City Council approval and adopted criteria (Res. No. 9263, 2001 Series). Affordable housing projects Mixed-use developments with affordable units Senior housing projects Affordable housing projects Mixed-use developments with affordable units Senior housing projects Affordable housing projects Mixed-use developments with affordable units Senior housing projects 45

46 Alternative Incentives When developers agree to construct extremely low, very low-, low-, moderate income or senior housing, the City may negotiate an alternative incentive of comparable value to the density bonus, such as exceptions to development standards, direct financial assistance, or city installation of off-site improvements. Flexible Development A variety of flexible development standards is Standards available for affordable and senior housing, and for the preservation and rehabilitation of historic homes and apartments. These include easing of parking standards and building setbacks, height and lot coverage exceptions (with approval of Planned Development rezoning), and provisions for restoring nonconforming residential buildings following a fire or other disaster. Grants-In-Aid Funds Mills Act Program San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund Grants-In-Aid funds are available annually to assist social service and housing providers with special, non-recurring costs to augment affordable housing programs. Reduces property taxes on historic residential and commercial properties in return for owner s agreement to preserve, and in some cases, improve the property. Minimum 10 years' participation; up to 10 properties can be added to the program per year. A nonprofit loan fund created to increase the supply of affordable housing in San Luis Obispo for very low-, low- and moderate income households. Affordable housing projects Mixed-use developments with affordable units Senior housing projects Affordable housing projects Mixed-use developments with affordable units Senior housing projects Historic homes and apartments Planned residential developments Non-conforming residential restoration Not-for-profit social service and housing providers Historic preservation Residential rehabilitation Mixed-use historic rehabilitation Acquisition of improved or unimproved sites/buildings Construction, conversion, or rehabilitation Project planning and predevelopment 46

47 First Time Home Buyers Program Technical Assistance This program provides substantial down payment assistance to eligible households through the State of California's BEGIN program. Under this program, moderate income, first time homebuyers may qualify for $92-$128 thousand in down payment assistance for eligible projects. Assistance is provided at 3% simple interest. Periodic payments are not required during the term of the loan to insure an affordable monthly payment for the borrower. Technical assistance is available to help renters, homeowners, housing developers, and not-for-profit housing developers find, design, fund or build affordable housing. Free peer review of design proposals is available by SLO Greenbuild professionals to identify energy efficiencies that can be included in projects. Purchase of affordable housing units Low Income First time homebuyers Affordable housing developments Market-rate housing developments Housing consumers State Resources California Department of Housing and Community Development Affordable Housing Innovation Program: Local Housing Trust Fund Program (LHTF) Affordable Housing Innovation Program: construction Liability Insurance Reform Pilot Program Affordable Housing Innovation Program: Practitioner Fund Affordable Housing Innovation Program: Loan Fund Affordable Housing Innovation Program: Innovative Homeownership Program Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods Program (BEGIN) Helps finance local housing trust funds dedicated to the creation or preservation of affordable housing. Reduce insurance rates for condominium development, by promoting best practices in construction quality control. Provide acquisition financing to pre-qualified developers for the development o preservation of affordable housing Provide quick acquisition financing for the redevelopment or preservation of affordable housing. Increase Homeownership opportunities for Californians with lower incomes. Reduce local regulatory barriers to affordable ownership housing, and provide down-payment assistance loans to qualifying first-time lowand moderate-income buyers of homes in BEGIN projects. Loans for construction of lowincome senior housing projects Construction oversight Monitoring activities Property acquisition Property acquisition TBD Second mortgage assistance in projects facilitated by local regulatory incentives 47

48 CalHome Program CalHome Self-Help Housing Technical Assistance Allocation (CalHome Self-Help) Emergency Housing and Assistance Program Operating Facility Grants (EHAP) Emergency Housing and Assistance Program Capital Development Component (EHAPCD) Exterior Accessibility Grants for Renters Governor s Homeless Initiative (GH) Housing Urban-Suburbanand-Rural Parks Program Prop 1C Infill Infrastructure Grant Program Mobilehome Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP) Multifamily Housing Program: General component (MHP- General) Prop 1C Grants to local public agencies and nonprofit developers to assist individual households through deferred-payment loans. Direct, forgivable loans to assist development projects involving multiple ownership units, including single-family subdivisions. Fund technical assistance for non-profit programs that help low and moderate income families to build their homes with their own labor. Provide facility operating grants for emergency shelters, transitional housing projects, and supportive services for homeless individuals and families. Fund capital development activities for emergency shelters, transitional housing and safe havens that provide shelter and supportive services for homeless individuals and families. Grants for local and non-profits to help lower income rental tenants with disabilities make exterior modifications to their rental housing to make it accessible. An interagency effort to refinance loans for new projects that propose affordable housing. Funding development of permanent supportive housing for persons with severe mental illness who are chronically homeless. Provide funding for parks related to housing development in urban, suburban and rural areas. Assist in the new construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure that supports higher-density affordable and mixed-income housing in locations designated as infill. Funds awarded to mobile-home park tenant organizations to convert mobile-home parks to resident ownership. Low interest loans to developers of affordable multifamily rental and transitional housing projects for lower income tenants. Predevelopment, site development, and site acquisition for development projects Down-payment assistance, mortgage financing, homebuyer counseling, and technical assistance for selfhelp Site rehabilitation and acquisition, repair and replacement of manufactured homes. Training, supervision of lowand moderate-income self-help homebuilders. Operations and administration Residential rent assistance Capital for development activities Site acquisition Construction Conversion costs Rehabilitation modifications to rental housing or property to make it accessible to persons with disabilities construction rehabilitation site acquisition TBD New construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of infrastructure. Mobile-home park acquisition and development Project development Capital costs Property acquisition On- and off-site improvements New Construction & rehab 48

49 Multifamily Program: Housing (MHP-SH) Predevelopment Program Brownfield Program Prop 1C Housing Supportive component Loan Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program (Serna): Ownership Component Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program (Serna): Rental Component Office of Migrant Services (OMS) Multifamily Housing Program: Homeless Youth Component (MHP-HY) California Homebuyer s Downpayment Assistance Program (CHDAP) Affordable Housing Partnership Program (AHPP) Housing Enabled by Local Partnerships CaHLIF California Housing Loan Insurance Fund Low-interest loans to developers of permanent affordable rental housing developments that contain supportive housing units. Provide predevelopment capital loans to finance the start of low income housing projects. Provides grants and loans to support site clean up to support infill development with 15% affordable units or supportive housing. 100% match of local funds to finance the new construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of owner-occupied housing units for agricultural workers, with a priority for lower-income households. 100% match of local funds to finance the new construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of rental housing units for agricultural workers, with a priority for lower-income households. Provide safe, decent and affordable seasonal rental housing and support services for Migrant farmworker families during the peak harvest season. Low-interest loans to developers of permanent affordable rental housing developments that contain housing units for homeless youth housing units. California Housing Finance Agency Collaboration with lenders to offer below market rate down-payment loans. This program allows borrowers to combine a CalHFA first mortgage loan with down payment and/or closing cost assistance from an Affordable Housing Program Partner. HELP Program and other below-market-rate financing and deferred loans for local government and non-profits producing affordable housing development. Provides primary mortgage insurance for hardto-qualify borrowers, expanding home ownership opportunities. Project development Capital costs Property acquisition On- and off-site improvements Construct, rehabilitate, convert, or preserve lowincome housing Site control, acquisition, technical studies/reports/plans, and fees Clean-up, mitigation, and remediation Technical oversight Capitalization of operation and maintenance fund Costs related to the development and ownership of housing for agricultural workers Activities incurring costs in the development of rental housing for agricultural workers. Construction Rehabilitation Maintenance operation Capital costs Property acquisition Refinancing On- and Off-site improvements Down-payment loans to moderate-, low-, and very lowincome households Loans to moderate-, low-, and very low-income Low- and moderate income affordable single- and multifamily housing First-time homebuyers Low- and moderate- income homebuyers Workforce housing loans 49

50 CalHFA Conventional Loans CalHFA Down-payment Assistance Self-Help Builder Assistance Program Builder-Lock Program CIEDB California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Housing Program Various programs providing lower cost loans, such as a 30-year fixed, interest only PLUS, 40-year fixed Various programs providing loans for down payments, such as California Homebuyer's Down-payment Assistance Program (CHDAP) Provides a source of financing to nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporations who use self-help type construction for affordable housing Builders/Developers may purchase forward commitments for permanent first mortgage financing for CalHFA-eligible borrowers tied to their construction/marketing program at single family new-home developments anywhere in the state. California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank Provides low-cost financing for public infrastructure to support housing and economic development. California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Tax credits available to individuals and corporations investing in low-income rental housing. Tax credits are issued through the State and sold to corporations and others with high tax liability, with proceeds used for housing development. Cooperate with non-profit housing providers to enable issuance of multi-family housing revenue bonds Provides funding for the development of permanent supportive housing for individuals with serious mental illness and their families, as appropriate, who are homeless or at risk of being homelessness. First-time homebuyers Low- and moderate- income home buyers First-time homebuyers Low- and moderate- income home buyers site acquisition site development, home construction Housing construction Streets, drainage, parks, public safety facilities, transit improvements, parks, lighting Acquisition Housing rehabilitation New construction Affordable housing projects Mixed-use developments with affordable units Senior housing projects Costs associated with the creation of permanent or supportive housing. 50

51 California Department of Mental Health (DMH), the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) and the County Mental Health Directors Association Mortgage Credit Certificate Emergency Capital Repairs Program Assisted-Living Conversion Program (ALCP) Economic Development ("Competitive EDI") Grants Shelter Plus Care (S+C) Federal tax credit for low- and moderate income homebuyers who have not owned a home in the past three years. Provides grants for substantial capital repairs to eligible multifamily projects that are owned by private nonprofit entities. To provide private nonprofit owners of eligible developments with a grant to convert some or all of the dwelling units in the project into an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) for the frail elderly. Enhance the security of section 108 guaranteed loans or improve the viability of the same Section 108 assisted project. grants for rental assistance, in combination with supportive services from other sources, to homeless people. First-time homebuyer's assistance Rehabilitation Modernization Retrofitting physical conversion of existing project units, common and services space Acquisition Rehabilitation New construction Infrastructure Historic preservation Economic development Tenant-based rental assistance Sponsor-based rental assistance Project-based rental assistance 51

52 Federal Resources United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Federal Emergency Shelter Grant Program (FESG) Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Supportive Housing Grant Federal Housing Choice Voucher (previously Section 8 and Family Self-Sufficiency Programs) Section 202: Demonstration Pre- Development Grant Program Section 811 Section 108 Grant awarded to the City annually on a formula basis to fund housing and economic development for lowand moderate income persons. Grant program specifically for housing. Designed as partnership funding, requires local match funding and one of the best sources of new housing funding. Grant awarded on an annual formula basis for shelter and services to homeless persons. Funds available county-wide for supportive services and housing for persons with HIV/AIDS. Provides a 10-20% one-time, IRS tax credit on eligible rehabilitation costs for pre-1936 and National Register historic properties. Work must follow Secretary of the Interior rehabilitation standards. Grant to improve quality of existing shelters and transitional housing. Very-low income families, individuals, seniors and the disabled. pay 30% of their income toward rent. The SLO Housing Authority pays the balance of rent payment. Grants to non-profit housing developers for supportive housing for the elderly. Grants to non-profit developers for supportive housing for disabled persons, including group homes, intermediate-care facilities and independent-living facilities. Provides loan guarantee to CDBG entitlement jurisdictions, enabling them to borrow up to five times their annual entitlement for major housing or capital improvement projects. 52 Affordable housing construction Historic preservation Property acquisition for housing Housing rehabilitation Public services and facilities Code enforcement Fair housing activities Economic development Single- or multi-family housing acquisition/rehab/construction CHDO Assistance Administration Homelessness prevention Continuum of care Operating expenses Rental assistance Social services Housing Rental housing rehabilitation Mixed-use projects Seismic strengthening Ownership housing ineligible Housing rehabilitation Rental assistance for very low income, elderly and disabled persons Acquisition and Rehabilitation New construction Rental assistance Support services Acquisition Rehabilitation New construction Rental assistance Acquisition Rehabilitation New construction Infrastructure Historic preservation Economic development

53 Affordable Housing Program (AHP) Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco The Affordable Housing Program provides grants and subsidized loans to banks to support affordable rental housing and homeownership opportunities. acquire, construct, or rehabilitate rental housing provide homebuyer downpayment or closing cost assistance cover the cost of homebuyer pre- or postpurchase counseling Access to Housing and Economic Assistance for Development (AHEAD) Program Youthbuild Provides grants to support economic development and housing projects during the conception and early development stages. Private Resources Vocational training for organizations to fund projects to assist high-risk youth learn housing construction and rehabilitation skills and complete their high school education as they construct housing for low-income and homeless persons or familes. Activities related to the creation of low- and moderate-income housing Program support 53

54 Chapter 4 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES 4.10 Overview State housing law requires that each jurisdiction identify the number of housing units that will be built, rehabilitated and preserved during the Housing Element s planning period. These projections are termed quantified objectives. Quantified housing objectives allow the community to evaluate its progress toward meeting key housing needs and help prioritize planning and funding efforts. They are based on the City s housing needs assessment and regional housing needs allocation, and are adopted policy. However, San Luis Obispo cannot guarantee these objectives will be met, given limited financial resources, costs to provide public facilities to serve new development, and the growing, statewide gap between housing costs and incomes. Meeting the City s quantified housing objectives will depend, in part, upon real estate market forces, developers' and lenders' financial decisions and the availability of local, State and Federal funding. According to state housing law, a jurisdiction may take credit toward meeting RHNA requirements two ways: 1) for dwellings built or under construction between the base year of the RHNA period and the beginning of the new planning period, and 2) dwellings that received building permits on or after January 1 of the year falling two years prior to the due date of the jurisdiction s housing element. These units are then subtracted from the City s RHNA to determine the balance of site capacity that must be identified. For example, the base year for the RHNA period is January 1, 2007; consequently, dwellings that received building permits, built or under construction between January 2, 2007 and January 1, 2010 (beginning of the Housing Element s planning period) are credited toward meeting the City s Regional Housing Allocation. To credit units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households toward the RHNA requirement, a jurisdiction must demonstrate the units are affordable based on at least one of the following: subsidies, financing, deed restrictions or other mechanisms that ensure affordability (e.g., MHP, HOME, or Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) financed projects or inclusionary units); actual rents; and actual sales prices. 54

55 4.20 Housing Construction Completed Table 3 shows the number of new housing units approved, permitted, under construction or completed between January 1, 2007 and December 31, These units are credited toward meeting the City s quantified objectives during the five-year planning period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, Table 3 Dwellings Approved, Under Construction or Built, January 1, 2007 December 31, 2009 Project Name/Address Tumbling Waters/861 Orcutt Road Villas at Higuera/3071 South Higuera Street Sycamore Plaza/3590 Sacramento Drive Status Approved, Under Construction or Built 1 Under construction Total Units by Income Level Units EL VL L M AM (A) Built (B) Built (n/a) Vaquero/579 Marsh St. Approved (A) Villa San Luis/225 North Chorro Street Broad Street Mixed Use/3591 Sacramento Dr Under Construction (n/a) Built (A) Rolph Condos/1063 Ella Built (A) Individual dwellings, various addresses Wineman Hotel/849 Higuera Street Moylan Terrace/851 Humbert Street Village at Broad/2238 Broad Street Roem Project/ Emily Street Alano Project/ Osos Street Built (n/a) Built (B) Approved (A) Approved (B) Approved (B) Approved 3 3 (B) Methodology of Affordability Determination (A) Sales price (B) Rent price (C) Other Subsidy (n/a) Market rate 55

56 Project Name/Address Pacific Courtyards/1327 Osos Street Mix at Monterey/1308 Monterey Street Granada Project/1120 Morro Street Foster s MXD/590 Marsh Street Chinatown MXD/847 Palm Street Status Approved, Under Construction or Built 1 Total Units Units by Income Level EL VL L M AM Approved (A) Approved 5 5 (A) Approved (A) Approved (n/a) Approved (A) 1310 Foothill Boulevard Built (n/a) Quaglino/2015 Santa Barbara Avenue Approved 8 8 (n/a) 956 Monterey Street Approved 1 1 (n/a) Bridge Street MXD/215 Bridge Street Habitat for Humanity/ 1324 Phillips Street Approved (B) Approved 2 2 (A) ASN/345 High Approved 1 1 (B) Lopez MXD/399 North Foothill Boulevard Garcia MXD/774 Caudill Street Parkwood Condo Conversion/1017 Southwood Drive 2 Vista De La Ciudad Condo Conversion, 1043 Ella Street 2 Foothill Courtyard/730 Foothill Boulevard Heil Mixed Use/3229 Broad Street Approved 4 4 (n/a) Approved 4 4 (n/a) Built (B) Built 2 2 (A) Approved 6 6 (n/a) Approved 8 8 (n/a) 863 Pacific Street Approved 3 3 (n/a) Front Porch/1324 Foothill Boulevard Built 8 8 (n/a) Methodology of Affordability Determination (A) Sales price (B) Rent price (C) Other Subsidy (n/a) Market rate 56

57 Project Name/Address Cebulla 4-plex/1224 Murray Street Moerrman duplex/2040 Cypress Street Status Approved, Under Construction or Built 1 Total Units Units by Income Level EL VL L M AM Approved 4 4 (n/a) Approved 2 2 (n/a) Methodology of Affordability Determination (A) Sales price (B) Rent price (C) Other Subsidy (n/a) Market rate Price SDU/2443 Broad Street Cowan-French/Tract 2342 Approved 1 1 (n/a) Approved (A) De Blauw/Tract 2353 Approved (B) King/Tract 2428 Approved (B) TOTAL 1, ,033 Source: Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo, Includes dwellings that received planning approvals or construction permits between 1/1/07 and 12/31/09. 2 Required as a condition of condominium tract map approval Housing Construction Objectives Table 4 shows the City s regional housing need for new housing construction for January 1, 2007 through December It includes City construction objectives for detached (SFH) and attached (MFH) housing types, both rental and for-sale units. 57

58 Table 4 Regional Housing Need Allocation, City of San Luis Obispo January 2010 through December 2014 Income Category (% of County Median Income) Regional Housing Need Allocation SFH 2 MFH Total Extremely Low (< 30%) Very Low (30-50%) Low (51-80%) Moderate (81-120%) Above Moderate (> 120%) TOTAL UNITS 488 1,101 1,589 Source: San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, October Given the deep subsidies needed to construct extremely low and very-low income single-family units, most housing for these income groups is expected to be multi-family units. 2 SFH refers to detached housing; MFH means multi-family housing. The new housing objectives are based on an assumed construction ratio of single family to multifamily housing of 40:60, and a percent distribution of housing for income groups which follows that of the City s RHNA number: Extremely low -11%, Very low 12%, Low 16%, Moderate 19%, and Above moderate 42%. For Extremely low and Very low income categories, no single-family housing production is anticipated, given the high cost and deep public subsidies needed for this type of housing. To meet housing needs for these income categories, it is likely that virtually all of the units will be higher density, multi-family rental housing Preservation of At-Risk Units Dwellings built with some form of government assistance or subsidy typically must remain affordable to very low-, low- or moderate income households for a specific period. As part of the housing element update, State law requires an analysis of assisted housing developments that may lose their affordability provisions during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use. These units are said to be at-risk of conversion to market-rate housing. In addition, jurisdictions also must describe measures to prevent at-risk from converting to market rate. There are several reasons why government-assisted housing might convert to market-rate housing, including expiring subsidies, mortgage prepayments, or most commonly, expiration of affordability and resale restrictions. A 58

59 45-year affordability requirement is common; however, the term varies depending upon the source and terms of funding. The analysis applies to assisted housing developments, or multi-family rental housing that was developed with or that receives governmental assistance under a number of federal, state or local housing programs. Such developments may include units receiving funding under a variety of government programs, such as HUD Section 8, HUD Section 202, IRS Section 42 (Tax Credit projects), federal Community Development Block Grants and local programs using inclusionary housing requirements, in-lieu fees and density bonuses. Appendix M includes an inventory of subsidized or assisted housing developments in San Luis Obispo. Nevertheless, Housing Element programs 3.8 and 3.13, and quantified objectives have been incorporated into the Housing Element to discourage affordable housing removals and to help track and preserve these affordable units. These and other programs will establish a monitoring and early warning system to track affordable housing units at-risk of being converted to market rate housing. Program 3.14 calls for the City to work with the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, non-profit housing agencies and community housing development organizations to help preserve at-risk units and rehabilitate residential and compatible commercial buildings to expand affordable housing opportunities and prevent the loss of affordable housing. Based on information provided by the City s Housing Authority, local non-profit housing providers, and the State Housing and Community Development Department, there is one affordable housing development at risk of losing its affordability restrictions and converting to market rate between January 2010 and January 2020: the Anderson Hotel. That property is discussed below. Anderson Hotel Property Location: 955 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo Assessor s Parcel Number: Owner: 955 Partnership, A General Partnership Lessee/Operator: The Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo Description: Former hotel with 70 apartments for very-low and low income persons Appraised Value, land and improvements: $3,092,831 General Plan/Zoning: General Retail/C-D-H Historic Status: Master List Historic Property Site Area/Number of Stories: 15,250 square feet/5 stories Anderson Hotel, located at the east corner of Morro and Monterey Streets 59

60 The Housing Authority leased the Anderson Hotel in 2001 to provide affordable rental housing for very-low income persons, primarily elderly and disabled persons. The Hotel has been remodeled to convert the original hotel rooms to small efficiency apartments, each with a bathroom and kitchenette, designed for one or two persons. Building lease payments are $38,724 per month, and this amount is paid entirely through a HUD Section 8 Rental Assistance grant. This grant helps pay for on-going operating and replacement costs, as well as the building s lease payments, and is supplemented by rents paid by the residents. The grant award is on an annual basis and there is no guarantee of long term funding. The lease is paid through While there is no indication the HUD grant is ending, if it were discontinued, the Housing Authority has stated it does not have the resources to pay the lease payments. Consequently, 70 units of affordable housing would be at risk. Although the building lease extends to 2021, with an option to extend the lease, the lease is not dependent upon or tied to grant assistance. Hence, should grant funding be terminated, lease payments would be required to continue. The Anderson is the largest downtown apartment and the largest single, one hundred percent affordable housing apartment building in the City. Its loss through conversion to market-rate units or to another use would displace 70 or more extremely- or very-low income persons who have very few housing alternatives and resources, and would be a substantial loss to the City s affordable housing stock. The estimated cost to build 70 comparable units, based on recent land and construction estimates in San Luis Obispo, is approximately $64,000 in land cost per unit, and $125,000 construction cost per unit, for a total cost of $13 million. Preserving the units can be accomplished through specified long-term rent subsidies or through property acquisition to ensure long term affordability. Rent subsidies will cost approximately $545,000 annually, without adjusting for inflation, until the lease expires in At that time, the lease option would allow a 20-year lease extension, with the lease price to be negotiated. If agreement on a lease extension cannot be reached, the owner could choose to sell the property. Funding sources that could assist with lease payments, include federal Urban County CDBG grants (approximately $600,000 annually for City of SLO), and several specialized HUD grant programs: a) Section 202 Supportive housing for elderly persons; b) Section 221 (d)(3) and (4) SRO, rental and cooperative housing; c) Section 231 Rental elderly housing; and d) Section 811 Supportive housing for disabled persons. Funding sources that could be used for property purchase include: a) City Affordable Housing Funds (totaling approximately $4.2 million in May 2009) b) Countywide Housing Trust Fund (over $3 million in loan funds available in May 2009) c) Urban County CDBG Funds (City and County of San Luis Obispo funds) 60

61 Although these sources were funded and available in 2009, the timing and future availability of these funding sources is unknown. Given the property s critically important role in downtown housing, unique architectural character and historic importance, and its uncertain long-term funding picture, retention of the historic Anderson Hotel as affordable housing poses a significant community challenge. That challenge will be addressed through Policies and Programs 2.12, 2.14, 3.2, 3.4, 3.10 and 3.13 that focus on preserving affordable dwellings Rehabilitation and Preservation Objectives The City s affordable housing stock is a valuable resource that should be preserved and, where necessary and feasible, rehabilitated rather than demolished. By enforcing City building and zoning codes, the safety, quality and durability of existing homes and neighborhoods is enhanced, thus maintaining the housing stock s diversity in type, tenure and cost. Often, the primary beneficiaries of preservation and rehabilitation programs are renters and low-income homeowners. Table 5 lists the number of units to be rehabilitated, preserved or financially assisted, and the number of conservation/code enforcement cases during the planning period. 61

62 Table 5 Rehabilitation, Preservation, and Conservation Objectives, No. of Units January 2010 to December 2014 Type of Unit Singlefamily rehab Multi-family rehab Historic preservation rehab Mobile Homes/Manu factured Hsg. Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Total REHABILITATION TOTALS PRESERVATION At-risk units preserved n/a n/a 70 CONSERVATION/CODE ENFORCEMENT Code enforcement cases 1 TOTALS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE CDBG/HO ME Grant Funds Affordable housing fund TOTALS Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, Building Code violations or life safety/health code violations 62

63 4.60 Quantified Objectives Summary Quantified objectives describe number of units, by income category, to be built, rehabilitated, preserved (at-risk housing), and conserved; and the number of housing units to receive financial assistance to ensure affordability. The quantified objectives include the following types of housing: Construction a) Rental housing b) For purchase Rehabilitation c) Owner occupied d) Renter occupied Preservation e) At-risk housing units Conservation f) Multi-family dwelling inspections g) Code enforcement/corrections Financial Assistance h) City Affordable Housing fund i) City utilities and impact fee waivers During the Housing Element's five year planning period from January 2010 to December 2014, the City will accommodate a net increase of 1,589 dwellings. The quantified objectives promote the development of housing that meets affordability standards for the income groups in the same proportion as the RHNA allocation, and emphasize production of multi-family, higher density housing, where appropriate. Although not counted toward meeting the City s RHNA allocation because it is located just outside city limits, housing developed by Cal Poly University on and adjacent to the campus on State land has been and will continue to play a key role in meeting City housing needs. As described in Table 6, and as allowed by State Law, the City s RHNA is reduced based on the number of dwelling units approved, under construction or built between January 1, 2007 and December 31, These units are deducted from the RHNA number for each income category to establish the City s housing construction objectives for the Housing Element s planning period, January 1, 2010 to December 31,

64 Table 6 Remaining RHNA Need Based on Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction or Built, January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009 Income Category A B A-B Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction or Built New Construction Need (RHNA) Remaining Need, Dwelling Units Extremely-Low (<31% of AMI) Very Low (31-50% of AMI) Low (51-80% of AMI) Moderate (81-120% of AMI) Above Moderate 665 1,033 1 (665) 0 1 (over 120% of AMI) TOTAL UNITS 1,589 1,279 (911) 678 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, No credit allowed for the number of units built that exceed RHNA. 64

65 Table 7 Quantified Objectives Summary, January 2010 December 2014 Income Level Construction Rehabilitation Preservation Conservation Extremely Low Financial Assistance Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total Proposed Dwelling Units Less Units Approved, Under Construction or Built Balance to be completed, 1/1/10-12/31/ , Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2010 Table 7 summarizes the City s quantified housing objectives for the five-year planning period. An evaluation of the residential development capacity and dwellings approved, built or under construction results in a remaining housing need of 678 new dwellings during the housing element s planning period. Although the quantified objectives are theoretically achievable, they are not specific development quotas. The City intends to use the financial, planning and administrative resources at its disposal to accomplish these objectives, but cannot guarantee they will be achieved given limited financial resources, economic uncertainty, independent financial decisions regarding housing development, and the large gap between housing cost and median County residents incomes. Achieving the quantified objectives will hinge largely upon private development decisions and the City s ability to leverage additional Federal, State or local funding to meet extremely low, very-low, low- and moderate income housing needs. 65

66 Appendix A Community Profile To understand San Luis Obispo s housing needs, an demographic profile of the community is essential. Statistical information provided in this appendix forms the basis for the goals, policies and programs in Chapter 3, and for establishing quantified housing objectives in Chapter 4, as required by State law. Social, economic and housing characteristics are analyzed to determine how these factors affect housing needs, costs and availability. Main sources of statistical data in this community profile include the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census, 2002 U.S. Economic Census, California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, and the 2008 University of California, Santa Barbara, Economic Forecast Project Outlook for San Luis Obispo County. 1. Population Trends and Characteristics San Luis Obispo is one of seven cities located within San Luis Obispo County, and is the largest in terms of population. As shown in Table A-1, the City's estimated population in 2008 was 44,750 (California Department of Finance, January 1, 2009). The population of the County is estimated to be 270, 429. Thus, approximately 17 percent of County residents lived in the City of San Luis Obispo in Table A-1 Population Growth, San Luis Obispo City, County, and State of California Population City County State Rate of Rate of Change Population Change Population (%) (%) Rate of Change (%) , , ,871, , , ,430, , , ,063, , , ,652, , , ,199, , , ,675, , , ,114, , , ,559, , , ,883, , , ,292, Source: U.S. Census, 2000; California Department of Finance, revised estimates,

67 The City s long-term population growth rate has reflected slow, steady growth of one percent or less per year. From , the City s population rose slightly for four years, and decreased slightly over four years. During this period, annual population change never exceeded one percent, and only once did it change more than half a percent. Comparatively over the same period, the population of the County grew at rates of 0.91 to 1.47 percent, and the State s population grew annually at rates ranging from 1.2 to 1.84 percent. Table A-2 shows the average annual growth rate in population for the City, County, and State between 1980, 1990, 2000 and The relatively recent slow growth is apparent between 2000 and 2008, when the City population increased only 0.1 percent between 2000 and The average annual growth rate for the County was nine times higher at 0.9 percent per year and the State s growth rate was 12 times higher for the same period. Despite growing markedly faster than the City between 2000 and 2008, both the City and State saw their average annual growth rates drop slightly compared to 1990 to Table A-2 Average Annual Population Growth, San Luis Obispo City, County, and State of California Population City County State Average Average Annual Annual Population Growth Growth Population Rate (%) Rate (%) Average Annual Growth Rate (%) , , ,770, , , ,760, , , ,871, , , ,049, Source: U.S. Census, 1990; U.S. Census, 2000; California Department of Finance, 2008 The California Department of Finance predicts that between 2005 and 2030, the State s population will grow by almost 11.5 million to slightly greater than 48 million residents. This is a projected annual growth rate of 1.09 percent. As part of its regional planning functions, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) develops and publishes regional population, employment, and housing forecasts for the County and its communities. Table A-3 shows SLOCOG growth projections for the City and County prepared by Economics Research Associates, and Department of Finance projections for the State. 67

68 Table A-3 Population Projections, San Luis Obispo City, County, and State of California Year City County State , ,860 39,246, , ,426 40,889, , ,899 43,851, , ,980 45,572, , ,326 48,110,671 Annual Growth Rate 0.49% 1.0% 1.09% Source: Economic Research Associates for San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, 2006; California Department of Finance, 2008 SLOCOG projections for the County show an annual growth rate of 1 percent. This annual growth rate is their middle-range projection. SLOCOG low- and high-range projections forecast County annual growth rates of 0.9 percent and 1.2 percent respectively. For the City, SLOCOG projects a continuation of the relatively slow growth rates experienced between 2000 and 2008, with a 0.49 percent annual growth rate to The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) includes policies to accommodate an eventual City population of 57,200. At a.5 percent growth rate, the City's anticipated residential capacity would be reached by the year a) Age Composition San Luis Obispo s age profile is shown in Table A-4 and graphically in the form of a population pyramid in Figure A-1. When compared with the County and State, San Luis Obispo has significantly lower percentages of children, teens and adults in the primary childbearing years of The City however has a relatively high proportion of senior citizens. While smaller than the County, there are 1.5 percent more seniors age 65 years or older in the City than in the State. Due to the concentration of students attending Cuesta College and California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, young adults age are by far the largest age group in the City. The City s component of residents age is orders of magnitude greater than the County and State. With 33.6 percent of residents being age 18-24, the City has nearly a 2.5 times greater share of these young adults than the County, and nearly 3.4 times greater share than the State. As discussed in Appendix B, this demographic trend has important implications for the San Luis Obispo area housing market in terms of housing type, tenure and demand. 68

69 Table A-4 Age Distribution, 2000 San Luis Obispo City, County, and State of California Age City County State Population Percent Population Percent Population Percent Under 5 1, , ,486, , , ,762, , , ,366, , , ,714, , , ,945, and over 5, , ,595, Source: U.S. Census, 2000 Figure A-1 Population Pyramid, 2000 City of San Luis Obispo Age Group 85 and Under 5 Male Female 7,500 6,000 4,500 3,000 1, ,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 Population Source: U.S. Census, 2000 b) Race and Ethnicity As shown in Table A-5, San Luis Obispo City and County are less diverse racially and ethnically 69

70 than the State as a whole. In 2000, more than three quarters of the residents in the City and County were of white and non-hispanic origin (note: By census definitions, Hispanic or non- Hispanic origin is an ethnic characteristic independent of race). However, the racial and ethnic compositions of both the City and the County are changing. Between 1990 and 2000, The White and non-hispanic population component in the City dropped nearly 10 percent and in the County, over 13 percent during this period. By 2000, the Hispanic population of any race was the second largest in the City and County. Asian and Pacific/Islanders were the third largest population, followed by residents of two or more races. This was a new racial category added in the 2000 census. Table A-5 Racial and Ethnic Composition as a Percentage of Total Population, City and County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, 1990 and 2000 Ethnicity City County State White Black/African-American American Indian/Alaska Native Asian or Pacific Islander Other Two or More Hispanic or Latino of Any Race Source: U.S. Census 1990, U.S. Census 2000 Table A-6 shows that growth in the Hispanic population is expected to continue. By 2015, the California Department of Finance projects that just under one quarter of the County s population will be Hispanic. Asian/Pacific Islander category is projected to be the second fastest growing population behind Hispanic, with the White population projected to be the most rapidly declining population. 70

71 Year Table A-6 Projected Change in Racial and Ethnic Composition by Percent, San Luis Obispo County Total Population No. of persons The Hispanic population is not distributed evenly throughout the County. In 2002, the percentage of Hispanic or Latino persons ranged from a low of less than seven percent in the City of Pismo Beach, to the highest percentage of 88 percent in the unincorporated town of Oceano. Just less than 12 percent of San Luis Obispo City s population is estimated to be of Hispanic or Latino origin (2003 UCSB Economic Forecast Project, San Luis Obispo County Outlook). 2. Employment Trends White Black Native American % of total No. of persons % of total No. of persons % of total Asian/Pacific Islander No. of persons % of total No. of persons Hispanic , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Source: California Department of Finance, 2007 *Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race % of total Due to its centralized location, early settlement history and transportation links via the Southern Pacific Railroad and State Highways 101, 1 and 227, San Luis Obispo historically has served as the County s governmental, retail and cultural hub. City and County economies historically were based largely on agricultural activities. In 2007, as shown in Table A-7, the industrial sector comprising educational services, health care, and social assistance was the largest employer of City and County residents at 20.2 and 20.9 percent respectively. Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services, and retail trade were also important sectors, accounting for double digit shares of employment. All of these high share sectors can be categorized as service industries. 71

72 Table A-7 Employment by Industry for Residents of San Luis Obispo City, County, and State of California, 2007 Industry Number of Jobs City County California Number Number of Percent Percent of Jobs Jobs 72 Perce nt Educational services, and health care and social assistance 5, , ,113, Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation, 5, , ,505, and food services Retail trade 3, , ,853, Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services 2, , ,972, Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 1, , ,242, Public administration 1, , , Manufacturing 1, , ,770, Construction 1, , ,304, Transportation and warehousing, and utilities , , Information , , Other services, except public administration , , Wholesale trade , , Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining , , Civilian employed population 16 years and over 25, , ,564, Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey, The City s total work force (civilian employed persons 16 years or older) was estimated at 25,427 in 2007 by the American Community Survey. In 2000, the total workforce was 22,057, reflecting an increase of 3,370 persons, or 15.3 percent, during the decade. San Luis Obispo s economy is relatively stable, owing to the large number of public sector employees, and private sector employers that receive government funds in the City and nearby unincorporated County, including the County of San Luis Obispo, California Polytechnic State University, Cuesta College, California State Department of Forestry, California Department of Transportation, California Army National Guard, San Luis Coastal Unified School District and the City of San Luis Obispo. Large private sector employers include P.G.& E., Cal Poly Foundation, Sierra

73 Vista Regional Medical Center, French Hospital, Economic Opportunity Commission and Madonna Inn. Table A-8 Labor Force and Unemployment, City of San Luis Obispo Labor Force Unemployment Employed Unemployed Total Rate, (%) ,500 1,100 24, ,200 1,100 25, ,600 1,300 25, ,500 1,300 25, ,900 1,300 26, ,400 1,300 26, ,800 1,200 27, ,200 1,300 27, ,900 2,000 27, ,800 2,500 28, Note: Unemployment rate is unemployed labor force divided by total size of labor force. Those who choose not to work or have given up searching for work typically are not calculated as members of the labor force data are non-preliminary annual figures data is preliminary for March 2009 Source: California Employment Development Department, 2009 Nevertheless, the area s economy is not immune from State and national economic forces. Due to the national economic recession, the unemployment rate in the City reached 8.9 percent in March This is the highest rate in the City so far this decade by more than two and a half percent. Prior to the spike in unemployment seen since 2008, the previous high this decade was 5.2 percent in 2003 during the previously most recent national economic slowdown. The City had recovered from that slowdown, with unemployment falling to 4.4 percent in 2006, equaling the previous low seen in Household Characteristics Household formation and characteristics are key factors shaping housing need. Following is an analysis of household size, growth, income, tenure and household trends. By definition, a household consists of all the people occupying a dwelling unit, whether or not they are related. For example, a single person living in an apartment, four students living in an apartment, a couple with two children, and an unrelated tenant living in the same dwelling are all considered households. a) Household Formation and Type As shown in Table A-9, the 1990 Census identified 16,952 occupied housing units in the City of San Luis Obispo compared with 18,653 in 2000, an increase of 10 percent. In 2008, there are 73

74 20,222 occupied housing units with an increase of 8.4 percent. It is interesting to note that while the number of households increased during this period, average household size declined by 5.5 percent, as shown in Table A-10, similarly trends of decreasing household size are seen in the county. In the State, trends slightly decreased in density. In part, this may be due to the fact that very few apartments were built during the 1990s and 2000s, and apartments in San Luis Obispo typically have a higher average number of persons per household than does detached or attached single family housing. The U.S. Census differentiates between a household and a family. As used here, the term "family" means two or more related persons living together as a unit. This may include single parents, children and extended family members (e.g., grandparents). A household includes unrelated persons (e.g., single persons, roommates, and unmarried persons who live together), as well as households falling under the family definition. No. of Households in Table A-9 Number of Households, 1990, 2000, and 2008 San Luis Obispo City, County and State of California No. of Change Households in % No. of Change Households in % City 16,952 18,653 1, ,222 1, County 80,281 92,739 12, ,171 23, State 10,381,206 11,502,870 1,121, ,444,455 1,941, Source: 1 US Census, 1990 and California Department of Finance 2008 The declining household size reflects the aging of the City s residents and the relatively high cost of housing. As homeowners age and become empty nesters, they often cannot afford to shift down and buy smaller housing that better meets their needs and budget. In San Luis Obispo, it is not uncommon for a three- and four-bedroom house to be occupied by one or two persons. As average households grow smaller, the existing housing stock accommodates fewer people, exacerbating housing needs, particularly for families and large households. 74

75 Average No. of persons per household in Table A-10 Household Size, 1990, 2000, and 2008 San Luis Obispo City, County and State of California Average No. of persons per household in Change Average No. of persons per household in Changes in household types clearly reflect community demographic changes since As shown in Table A-11, the percentage of City households occupied by single persons grew by five percent, while during the same period, the percent of households with married couples or families decreased by about four percent. The number of single parent households and nonfamily households with two or more persons has remained relatively unchanged. The City has about twice as many non-family households with two or more persons as the County, and about three times as many as that number in California as a whole. This ratio reflects the City s high concentration of student households and in part, explains the difficulty faced by many couples and families in finding affordable housing in San Luis Obispo. Table A-11 Households by Type, Percent of Total Households San Luis Obispo City, County and State of California Change % % City County State Source: 1 US Census, 1990 and 2000, 2 California Department of Finance 2008 Household Type, Percent of Total 1 Person Single with dependents Non-family, 2 or more Married couples, families City County State Source: U.S. Census Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. Both Table A-12 and Table A-13, show household patterns in When compared with the County, there is a higher percentage of non-family households in the City, which consists of about 59 percent nonfamily households and about 41 percent family households. Non-family 75

76 households and smaller household size (one to two persons) are more common in the City of San Luis Obispo than family and larger households. As in 2000, the higher concentration of student households in the City when compared with the County continues in Family Households No. of Table A-12 Estimated Households by Household Type, 2008 San Luis Obispo City and County Non-family Housing No. of Single Male Households No. of Single Female Households No. of Total No. of persons % persons % persons % persons % persons % City 7, , , , , County 64, , , , , Source: UCSB Economic Forecast 2009 b) Household Income Table A-13 Estimated Households by Household Size, 2008 San Luis Obispo City and County 1- Person Household 2- Person Household 3- Person Household 4- Person Household 5- Person Household 6- Person Household No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of person % % % % % persons persons persons persons persons s % City County Source: UCSB Economic Forecast 2009 Both Tables A-14 and A-15 compare data from the U.S. Census, California Department of Finance and University of California, Santa Barbara Economic Forecast (2009) for median household and family incomes in the City, San Luis Obispo County, State and other selected California counties. There has been significant growth in personal income in the last decade in both the San Luis Obispo City and County that is reflected in the increase of family and household income. Moreover, family income growth in the County is comparable to Santa Barbara County and Monterey County, and the State. In contrast, San Luis Obispo City households tend to have lower incomes and pay a larger portion of their income for mortgages or rent than San Luis Obispo County residents as a whole. Moreover, median household incomes in the City have grown more slowly since 1989, relative to median household incomes in the County. In 1989, the City's median household income was $25,982, or about 83 percent of the 76

77 countywide median. In 1999, the City's median household income was $31,926, or about 75 percent of the County median household income. In 2008, the City s median household income was 39,827, or 75 percent of the County median household income. Table A-14 Median Household Income, 1989, 1999, and 2008 San Luis Obispo City and County* Median Household Income, 1989 Median Household Income, 1999 Change in Income Median Household Income, Change in Income $ $ % $ % City 25,982 31,926 5, ,827 7, County 31,164 42,428 11, ,166 10, Source: US Census, 1990 and UCSB Economic Forecast 2009 * Figures for a four-person family or household Table A-15 Median Family Income 1989, 1999, and 2008 San Luis Obispo City, County, State of California, and selected California Counties* Median Family Income, 1989 Median Family Income, 1999 Change in Income Median Family Income, (1), (2) Change in Income 2008 $ $ $ % $ $ % City 25,982 31,926 5, N/A N/A N/A County 37,086 52,447 15, ,000 (1) 14,55 3 Santa Barbara Co. 35,677 46,677 11, ,100 (1) 20,42 3 Monterey Co. 33,520 48,305 14, ,800 (1) 16,49 5 Los Angeles Co. 34,965 42,189 7, ,800 (1) 17,61 1 California 35,798 47,493 11, ,800 (2) 20,30 Source: US Census, 1990 and 2000 (1) CA Dept. of Finance 2006 (2) UCSB Economic Forecast

78 Another income measure is per capita income, as shown in Table A-16. In 1989, the per capita income in the City was $14,760, compared with a per capita income in the County of $15,237. In 2007, the per capita income in the city was $25,870, compared with a per capita income in the County $27,490. For the same year in 2007, the per capita income for California residents as a whole was $39,626. Table A-16 Per Capita Incomes, 1989, 1999, and 2007 San Luis Obispo City, County, and State of California Per Capita Income, 1989 Per Capita Income, 1999 Change ($) Per Capita Income, 2007 (1), (2) Change ($) $ $ $ % $ $ % City 14,760 20,386 5, ,870 (1) 5, County 15,237 21,864 6, ,490 (1) 5, State 16,409 22,711 6, ,626 (2) 19, Source: US Census, 1990 and 2000 (1) UCSB Economic Forecast 2008 (2) US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce, 2008 The State of California defines five income categories for the purposes of determining housing affordability and need in communities. These categories are as shown in Table A-17. This method is consistent with definitions of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate income households as used in some Federal and most State housing programs; however, HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) applies different standards for Community Development Block Grant, Section 202 and other Federal grant programs. 78

79 Table A-17 State Income Categories Percent of County Median Income Category Income Extremely Low Income 30 % or Less Very Low Income 31% to 50% Low Income 51% to 80% Moderate 81% to 120% Above Moderate 121% or higher Source: California State Department of Housing and Community Development, Between 1989 and 2008, household incomes in San Luis Obispo increased significantly, following County income trends, as shown in Table A-14. Table A-18 shows the estimated number of households by income categories in the City of San Luis Obispo within varying income categories. The table indicates that in 2008, 34 percent of the City s households fell into the less than $24,999 income category, while 41 percent of the households were in higher income categories, with annual income of $50,000 or higher. Only 14 percent of the City s households fell between the $35,000 through $49,999 income category, probably reflecting the difficulty of finding affordable housing for sale to this income group. Table A-18 Estimated Households by Income Categories, 2008 City of San Luis Obispo Income Categories of Households % of total households Income Less than $ 24,999 6, Income $25,000 - $34,999 2, Income $35,000 - $49,999 2, Income $50,000 - $74,999 2, Income above than $75,000 4, Total 19, Source: UC Santa Barbara Economic Forecast, 2009 Table A-19 compares the City and County numbers of households below poverty level by household type. Household poverty threshold is a measure established by the Federal government that takes into account family size, number of persons under 18 years old and income. For example, according the California Department of Housing and Community Development (2008), poverty thresholds in 2008 for a single person household was $14,050, for a two person household was $16,100 and for a family of four was $20,100. Extremely-low, 79

80 Very-low and low-income households often require subsidies, combined with below-market rates or sales prices, to afford housing in relatively high-cost areas such as San Luis Obispo. Married Couple Families Male Households Female Households Non-Family Table A-19 Households below Poverty Level by Household Type, 1999 San Luis Obispo City, County, and State City County State No. of persons ,637 % of all Households below poverty in category No. of persons ,216 % of all Households below poverty in category No. of persons 264 1, ,138 % of all Households below poverty in category No. of persons 3,974 6, ,293 % of all Households below poverty in category Total Households in San Luis No. of persons 18,656 92,732 11,512,020 Obispo from all income categories % Source: U.S. Census, Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. According to the 2000 Census, the percentage of City households with incomes below the poverty threshold is about twice that of the County or the State. In 1999 about 24 percent of the City s households had incomes below the Federal poverty threshold, compared with about 12 percent for both the County and the State. Non-family households comprise about 88 percent of the City s households below the poverty threshold, and of these, about 24 percent consisted of persons under 25 years of age, with households of persons 65 years or older making up about 26 percent of City households below the poverty threshold. Comparing Table A-19 and Table A-20, the number of households below poverty by categories available (married couples, male households, and female household) decreased by about one percent between 1999 and Non-family data was not available for

81 Table A-20 Households below Poverty Level by Household Type, 2008 San Luis Obispo City and County City County Married Couple No. of persons 221 2,218 Families 1 % of all HH* below poverty in category Male Households 1 No. of persons % of all HH* below poverty in category Female No. of persons 257 1,782 Households 1 % of all HH* below poverty in category Non- Family 2 No. of persons No data No data % of all HH* below poverty in category No data No data Total Households in San Luis Obispo from all income categories Source: UCSB Economic Forecast With own and no own children 2 No current data available 19, , Housing Inventory and Market Factors a) Housing Stock Profile and Population Growth In the 1990s, the City s housing stock grew more slowly than the population, and both housing and population growth slowed markedly compared with the 1980s. The 1990 U.S. Census counted 17,877 housing units in the City, with a vacancy rate of 5.5 percent. By 2000 the City s housing stock grew to 19,340 units, with a vacancy rate of 3.6 percent, an increase of 1,463 units. In 2008 the City housing stock grew to 20,222 housing units, with a vacancy rate of 3.45 percent, an increase of 1,351 units. This is a housing growth rate for the 1990s of just over eight percent, or an annual average of about 0.8 percent. By contrast, in the 1980s the housing stock grew by 3,500 units, an average annual increase of 350 dwellings, or 2.42 percent. Between 1990 and 2000, the City s population grew from 41,958 to 44,148, an average annual increase of 219 persons, or 0.52 percent. In the 1980s, the City added about 7,700 persons, an average annual increase of 770 persons, or 2.25 percent. 81

82 Figure A-2 Housing and Population Growth, City of San Luis Obispo 8,000 7,706 7,000 Housing Units Added 6,000 Persons Added 5,000 4,000 3,414 3,000 2,221 2,000 1,501 1,012 1, Source: U.S. Census 2000 and City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department based on California Department of Finance estimates Table A-21 shows the net change in the number of dwellings due to completed construction between 1995 and 2008, a period that cuts across a relatively strong housing development cycle in the late 1990s, followed by a marked economic slowdown by Between 2000 and 2008, an average of 139 dwellings was built each year and 14 units were lost due to fire, demolition or conversion to another use. During the same period, 470 Multi-family dwellings were constructed, compared to 770 new single family dwellings. This dramatic reduction in multifamily projects (apartments and condominiums) has exacerbated the City s shortage of affordable housing. Multi-family housing typically provides a wider variety of housing costs and types than detached, single family housing. Yet most of the City s new housing since 1995 has been single-family detached houses. 82

83 Table A-21 Residential Development Net Change Due To Completed Construction (Number of Dwellings), City of San Luis Obispo Year Single Family 3 Multi-family Total Market Rate Below Market 2 Market Rate 5 Below Market 2 Nonexempt units Annual Growth Rate 1 for the year for three years N/A 9 N/A N/A 12 N/A 45 N/A N/A Total N/A N/A Notes: 1 Based on California Department of Finance figures for total number of dwellings at the beginning of the year. 2 Under General Plan policy, very-low and low income units not included in Residential Growth Rate. 3 Classification as to single-family or multi-family differs from previous reports, to conform to State and Federal housing-type definitions. 4 Not reflected in the 1999 numbers are about 24 existing dwellings, mostly single-family, that were annexed as part of the Fuller Road Area. 5 Negative number indicates the demolition or relocation of a dwelling outside the City. Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department 83

84 b) Unit Type San Luis Obispo's housing stock includes a wide range of dwellings, including "Victorian-style," single-family houses near downtown, mobile home parks, duplexes, detached single-family housing, condominiums and large, high-density apartment complexes close to the Cal Poly University campus. Many of the City's older neighborhoods contain a mix of single houses, houses with attached and detached secondary units, and small duplexes or triplexes. Table A-22 summarizes the composition of the City s housing stock for 1990, 2000, and Table A-22 Composition of Housing Stock by Unit Type, 1990, 2000, and 2008 City of San Luis Obispo City Unit Type of Units % of Total of Units % of Total of Units % of Total Single-Family Detached 8, , , Single-Family Attached 1, , ,311 7 Multi-Family (2-4 units) 2, , , Multi-Family (5+ units) 4, , , Mobile Homes, Other 1, , ,502 7 Total 17, , , Source: Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates, April 1990, January 2000, and January 2008 As shown in the Table A-22, in 2000 about 53 percent of San Luis Obispo s housing stock is categorized as single-family, with 38 percent in the multi-family classification and nine percent consisting of mobile homes. In 2008 about 54 percent of San Luis Obispo s housing stock is categorized as single-family, with 39 percent in the multi-family classification and seven percent consisting of mobile homes. The distribution of unit types change a little since 2000, with singlefamily and multi-family dwellings have both increased by approximately one percent, while two percent of mobile homes have been lost. c) Unit Size Unit size is commonly described in terms of the number of bedrooms in a residence. Table A-23 summarizes the City s housing stock by number of bedrooms in Although there is no data for unit sizes in the City of San Luis Obispo from 2008, the data from 2000 reflects similar conditions as the City has not significantly grown. Just over one-third of the City s housing stock consists of two-bedroom units, with studio/one-bedroom units and three- bedroom units each accounting for about one quarter of the total housing units. Four-bedroom and larger dwellings comprise about 13 percent of the housing stock. Under the City s Affordable Housing Standards, estimated occupancy is based on the number of bedrooms in a unit, as follows: 84

85 Studio unit: one-person household One-bedroom unit: two-person household Two-bedroom unit: three-person household Three-bedroom unit: four- and five-person household Four-bedroom unit: six-person household Unit size shifts markedly from owner-occupied to renter-occupied housing. For example, 50 percent of the City s housing stock consists of housing units with three or more bedrooms to accommodate larger households. As shown in Table A-23, however, most of these larger units are owner-occupied. About one-third of these larger units is available for renters. Due to the high demand for student housing, it is very difficult for families with four or more persons to secure larger rental units. According to the 2000 Census, the City has only 181 dwelling units with five or more bedrooms, or less than one percent of the housing stock. Table A-23 Housing Size - Number of Bedrooms by Tenure, 2000 City of San Luis Obispo Housing Size 0 and 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 bedrooms 4+ bedrooms Tenure Total of of of of % % % Units Units Units Units Units % Owneroccupied 7, , , , Renteroccupied 10,858 4, , , Totals 18,653 4, , , , Source: U.S. Census 2000 d) Tenure Tenure refers to whether householders rent or own their dwelling. Most city residents are renters. In 2008, 11,305 occupied housing units, or 58 percent of City households, are renters -- a significantly higher proportion than in the County and State. The proportion of renters and homeowners has not changed significantly since 2000, even though most new construction since 1990 has been single-family housing. This may be explained, in part, by increased density in city rental housing. As rents increase, higher density allows renters to hold individual rental costs down. Also, in many older neighborhoods, many single-family houses have been converted to rental housing due to the strong demand for available rentals. Such conversions improve the availability of rental housing, particularly for non-family households, but at the same time reduce the availability of older, for-sale housing often sought by first time homebuyers, couples, families and first-time homebuyers. 85

86 Table A-24 Estimated Tenure of Occupied Housing Units, 2008 City of San Luis Obispo Change % % % Owner-occupied 7, , Renter-occupied 10, , Total 18, , Sources: 1 U.S. Census UCSB Economic Forecast 2007 e) Vacancy Rates The housing vacancy rate is one measure of general housing availability. A low vacancy rate less than five percent, for example suggests that households will have difficulty finding housing within their price range. Conversely, a high vacancy rate may indicate either a high number of housing units that are undesirable for occupancy, a high number of seasonal units, or an oversupply of housing. By maintaining a healthy vacancy rate of between five and eight percent, housing consumers have a wider choice of housing types and prices to choose from. As vacancy rates drop, shortages generally raise housing costs and limit choices. Since 1990, the City s vacancy rate remained at just over five percent; however, in , State Department of Finance figures show the rate dropped steeply to 3.46 percent. In 2009, the vacancy rate remained at 3.45 percent (State Department of Finance, 1/1/2009) with very little change between 2003 and By comparison, during the same period the County of San Luis Obispo vacancy rate has hovered at around 11 percent, dropping to about 9.3 percent during the first three years of the new decade. In 2009, the County vacancy rate dropped slightly to 9.29 showing very little change between 2003 and The City s consistently low vacancy rate reflects the high demand for student rental housing near college campuses (Cuesta College and Cal Poly University). f) Age of Housing Stock Housing age is one measure of housing stock condition and the need for rehabilitation. Older units often do not meet current building or zoning standards, and without proper maintenance, are more likely to need major repairs (e.g., new roof, plumbing and electrical repairs). Generally, dwellings over 30 years of age fall into this category, and for purposes of the Housing Element, the number of older dwellings is an indicator of the need for housing rehabilitation assistance. Table A-19 shows the age of the City s housing stock up to the year

87 Table A-25 Age of Housing Stock, 2007 City of San Luis Obispo Year Built of Units % of Units* Before , , , , , , Total Housing Units 22, Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey *Does not total 100% due to rounding. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey about 46 percent of the City s housing stock was built before 1970, and about 84 percent was built before By contrast, about 33 percent of the County s housing stock was built before 1970, and 83 percent of County housing was built prior to Both jurisdictions reflect a slowdown of housing production in the 1990s. Despite its high proportion of pre-1970 housing, the City s housing stock generally appears to be in good condition. A 2009 City inventory of vacant, underutilized and blighted properties identified 134 residential properties with exterior signs of serious disrepair, building condition or safety problems. The inventory included all neighborhoods; however, it was limited to a visual inspection of the exterior street elevations and a portion of the side elevations of housing units. It is likely that the number of substandard or dilapidated housing units is larger, based on the age of the housing stock. In terms of tenure by year of construction, Census data 2000 indicate that the City s older housing stock accounts for about 78 percent of the occupied rental housing. About 67 percent of the owner-occupied housing was built before g) Housing Condition Another measure of the City s housing stock is housing condition. Housing is considered substandard when conditions are below the minimum standards of living as defined by Section 1001 of the Uniform Housing Code. Households living in substandard housing may be exposed to health or safety threats, which, in turn, could adversely affect the safety and quality of life of neighborhoods. Such households are considered in need of housing assistance to correct any serious health or building safety problems, such as structural, plumbing, mechanical or electrical 87

88 problems, and the presence of unhealthful conditions or materials, e.g. asbestos and lead-based paint. In addition to structural problems (sagging roofs, walls or porches, lack of or failing building foundation, termite infestation, etc.), the lack of certain basic facilities may also indicate substandard conditions. According to the 2000 Census, there were 56 units in the City that lacked complete plumbing facilities. Of these, 48 were renter occupied. For Census purposes, complete plumbing facilities included: (1) hot and cold piped water; (2) a flush toilet; and (3) a bathtub or shower. All three must be located inside a housing unit to be recognized as having full plumbing facilities. No current data is available in According to the Census, 307 units lacked complete kitchen facilities, and of these, 278 units were renter-occupied. There were 148 units with no heating source, and 122 units that relied on heating oil, kerosene, coal or wood for heating. There is no current data is available in Based on City inventory, Census information, code enforcement and the age of units, it is estimated that in 2008, 800 multi-family dwellings were substandard and in need of major repair or rehabilitation, or about 10 percent of the City s multi-family housing. Additionally, an estimated 500 single-family dwellings were substandard and in need of major repair or rehabilitation, comprising about five percent of the City s single-family housing stock. h) Sales Costs and Rents Existing and New Housing Sales Price Trends Following a trend throughout much of California, and particularly the Central Coast of California (from Ventura County to San Luis Obispo County), the City of San Luis Obispo experienced a steep increase in existing and new home prices since the late 1990s. During the early to mid-1990s, housing costs in San Luis Obispo stabilized or showed a slight drop. A strong economy in the late 1990s pushed housing costs up, with increased employment, higher Cal Poly enrollment and greater housing demand. Since 2000, despite a nationwide economic slowdown in the early part of the decade, local and regional housing demand has remained strong, buoyed by record low mortgage interest rates and the San Luis Obispo area s attractiveness to retirees from both Southern and Northern California. Housing prices continued to increase until the impacts of the most recent nationwide economic slowdown, and later credit crisis, hit the region beginning in 2007 resulting in a decline in sales prices. Table A-26 shows the median sales prices of residential real estate in the City, County, and State from according to the University of California, Santa Barbara Economic Forecast Project s Outlook for San Luis Obispo County. Over the eight year period, median sale prices have been consistently higher in the City than in the County and State. In 2008, the median sales price in the City was projected to be just under $564,213. This was approximately 20 percent higher than the County and 4 percent higher than the State. Seven out of eight years, median prices were higher in the County than the State, with 2004 being the exception. 88

89 Table A-26 Median Residential Real Estate Sales Prices, San Luis Obispo City, County, and State of California City County State Median Median Price ($) Percent Change Price ($) Percent Change Median Price($) Percent Change , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Source: UCSB Economic Forecast Project, 2008 From 2001 to 2005, median sales prices in the City, County, and State experienced double digit rates of growth, before dropping to single digit growth in In 2007 and 2008, prices began their most recent decline. The City saw double digit decline in 2007 that tapered down to low single digit decline in This was the opposite case of the County and State which saw low single digit decline in 2007 and double digit decline in The most extreme decline was experienced by the state as whole in 2008, with a decline in prices of nearly one third. Rental Costs A survey from the UCSB Economic Forecast Project reported that the average contract rent for units in the City in 2008 as $1,275. Generally, rents are slightly higher in the City than they are in the County. Table A-27 shows the range of contract rents by unit type for the City and County in

90 Unit Type Rent Range ($) Table A-27 Range and Average Rent Costs, 2007 City and County of San Luis Obispo City Average Rent ($) Average $ per square foot 90 Rent Range ($) County Average Rent ($) Average $ per square foot Percent city average rent more than county Studio Bedroom 745-1, , Bedroom 880-2,080 1, ,080 1, Bedroom 1,400-2,430 2, ,430 1, Overall 595-2,430 1, ,430 1, Source: UCSB Economic Forecast of San Luis Obispo County, 2008 Table A-28 shows that average rents have increased since a survey of rental costs was conducted by the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department in Rents increased the most for studio units, 29 percent, but rents show double digit increases for all unit types. Overall average rents are not compared as that figure was not calculated in the 2003 survey. Table A-28 Range and Average Rent Costs, 2003 and 2008 City of San Luis Obispo Unit Type Percent Differenc Rent Range Average Rent Range Average Differenc e ($) ($) Rent ($) ($) Rent ($) e Studio Bedroom , Bedroom 925-1,600 1, ,080 1, Bedroom 1,375-1,950 1,706 1,400-2,430 2, Source: San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, UCSB Economic Forecast of San Luis Obispo County, 2008 A possible contributing factor to high rents in the City is low rental vacancy rates as shown in Table A-29. In 1990, both the City and County had vacancy rates relatively much higher than the State. In 2000, the City and County had vacancy rates relatively much lower than the State. Vacancy rates remained stable in the State from 1990 to The decline in vacancy rates in

91 the City and County from 1990 to 2000 proved to be part of a long-term trend of declining vacancy rates. The City showed almost complete occupancy in 2005 with a minuscule vacancy rate of.12 percent. The County showed a vacancy rate low of 1.25 percent in Table A-29 Rental Vacancy Rates, City and County of San Luis Obispo, State of California Year Percent Vacancy Rate City County State Source: U.S. Census 1990, U.S. Census 2000, U.S. Census American Community Survey, , UCSB Economic Forecast Project, Since these recent extreme lows occurred, vacancy rates have been steadily increasing. In 2008, the City had a vacancy rate just under 3 percent and the County had a vacancy rate just over 3 percent. Since 2005, the City has seen vacancy rates more than triple, almost double, and more than triple again in consecutive years. The 2008 vacancy rate is more than 25 times greater than While vacancy rates are relatively much higher than the recent past, they are still in a range of what is generally considered a low vacancy rate. A balanced vacancy rate for an area is typically around five percent. Vacancy rates lower than five percent favor landlords and can signal a dearth of choice for renters. Vacancy rates above five percent favor renters and can signal that landlords are having trouble finding tenants. Vacancy rates may be on the increase however due to continuing large scale construction of new student housing units at Cal Poly. The 200-unit, 800-bed Cerro Vista Apartments first opened in 2004, and the first phase of the 621-unit Poly Canyon Village Project opened in fall Completion is slated for fall i) Affordability Gap Analysis Ownership Units The most current available data that breaks down residential sales prices by different price ranges is the 2000 census. Table A-30 lists the values of owner-occupied, single family housing in San Luis Obispo City and County in 2000 based on homeowners Census responses. In 2000, 91

92 almost half of the City s homes were valued at below $250,000, compared with about 60 percent of homes in the County. While the decline in median prices since 2006 has sent prices closer to pre-boom levels, prices were still 48 percent higher in 2008 than 2001, likely making it difficult to find any housing for sale under $250,000. Table A-30 Single Family Housing Values, 2000 City and County of San Luis Obispo City County Price Range ($) of Units % of Total of Units % of Total Less than 100, , , , , , ,999 1, , , ,999 1, , , ,999 1, , , , , , , , ,000 or more Totals 6, , Median value $278,800 $230,000 Source: U.S. Census, 2000 *For owner-occupied units Although the total price of a home is an important indicator of affordability, the primary affordability determinant is the monthly payment. Lenders typically require homebuyers to demonstrate that the total monthly loan payment, consisting of loan principal, interest, taxes and insurance will not exceed 30 percent of gross monthly household income. Table A-31 compares the monthly median income and median housing costs in San Luis Obispo City, County and the State in Table A-31 Median Monthly Owner Cost As a Percentage of Household Income, 1999 Median Owner Cost, Percent of Household Income With Mortgage Without Mortgage City County State

93 Source: U.S. Census 2000 As shown, in 1999 a mortgaged median-priced house would require a household to spend about one quarter of its income on housing costs, which is below the 30 percent threshold. However, as mentioned, residential sales prices have increased dramatically since While median family income has also increased since then, it has not kept pace with the growth in prices. Table A-32 and Figure A-3 compare the median sales costs and median family income in the County from 2001 to (The most recent median income data for the City is the 2000 census). From 2001 to 2008, median family income in the County grew sharply, 33.5 percent. However, this is not nearly as large an increase as the almost two thirds increase in median sales price of a home. Table A-32 Median Residential Real Estate Costs vs. Median Family Income, County of San Luis Obispo Median Price ($) Percent Change Median Family Income ($) Percent Change Income Required To Afford ($)* % of Median Income Needed To Afford , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Change, , , , Source: UCSB Economic Forecast of San Luis Obispo County, 2008 *Income required to afford is annual income such that 30 percent of gross monthly income is the monthly mortgage payment for a median priced home. Mortgage payments are derived assuming 30-year fixed rate loan, at 6% interest, with a 20% down payment 93

94 Figure A-3 Median Residential Real Estate Costs vs. Median Family Income, County of San Luis Obispo Source: UCSB Economic Forecast of San Luis Obispo County, 2008 Table A-32 also shows what income is required to theoretically afford to buy a median priced home in the County. The income required figure is derived assuming that housing costs are at the 30 percent of gross income threshold, and that the mortgage being paid is a 30-year fixed interest home loan, with a 6% interest rate, and a 20% down payment. While the census showed that the median County homeowner was in good shape in 1999, under the 30 percent affordability threshold, the situation has become more difficult for home buyers since then. Even after accounting for the economic slowdown since 2006, approximately one third more than the median income was required to afford a median priced home in Further impacts on the housing market should the economic slowdown persist, may lower prices and the income thus required to afford homes. However, the slowdown may also impact the income that potential homeowners can make, and the interest rates they can acquire for home loans. If the assumed mortgage parameters are altered to have a higher interest rate or smaller down payment, monthly payments would increase, making units for sale even more unaffordable. While median sales prices have increased sharply during the decade, the impact may be not as pronounced on some units. Ownership housing costs vary widely within the City, depending 94

95 upon location, size, amenities, length of ownership, and condition census data indicates that the most affordable areas in terms of housing values are the South Street and Laguna Lake areas, and Downtown. Earlier, Table A-26 showed that while housing sales costs are impacted by the current economic slowdown, the rate of falling home values was lower in the City than for the County and State. This may be due to, as local realtors report, a large number of homebuyers in San Luis Obispo being from outside the area, primarily Southern California and the San Francisco Bay Area. Retirees and baby boomers nearing retirement age are attracted to the Central Coast and relocate, buying homes with equity accumulated from selling properties that they may have bought decades ago. Additionally, some parents of California Polytechnic State University students purchase property to provide housing for their children, with possible future use as income property or for retirement. The attractiveness of San Luis Obispo to retirees and to the stable population of university students may have contributed to relative high property values in boom years, and may have softened devaluation in the recent economic downturn. Rental Units Table A-33 shows the median gross rent as a percentage of household income in 1999, the most recently such data is available. While as previously discussed, home owners were spending less than the 30 percent of income affordability threshold for their housing costs in 1999, renters were spending considerably more. The median renter was spending 41.4 percent of their income on rent in 1999, suggesting overpayment for rental housing is common in San Luis Obispo. Table A-33 Median Gross Rent as a Percentage of Household Income, 1999 City and County of San Luis Obispo, State of California Median Renter Cost, Percent of Income City 41.4 County 30.8 State 27.7 Source: U.S. Census 2000 The rent households of different incomes can afford, using a 30 percent affordability standard, is shown below in Table A-34. Recalling Table A-28, the average rent of a studio apartment in the City in 2008 was $831 per month. This is the only housing that very low income households could potentially afford, taking into account the standard. Low income households could afford studio apartments or 1-bedroom units. 95

96 Table A-34 Affordable Rents by Income Group, 2008 County of San Luis Obispo Income Group Percent of Median Income Earned Affordable Rent Income Earned ($) ($)* Very Low 50 or less 33,500 or less 838 or less Low ,501-53, ,340 Moderate ,601-80,400 1,341-2,010 Above Moderate 121 or more 80,401 or more 2,011 or more *Affordable is defined as 30 percent or less of gross income spent on rent Source: UCSB Economic Forecast of San Luis Obispo County, 2008; San Luis Obispo Community Development Department While a small extremely low, very-low and low-income household could accept studio or 1- bedroom units, Table A-35 shows that their small size may make them unreasonable for larger households. A very low-income household of three or more in the County is essentially priced out of the City of San Luis Obispo s rental market, and a low-income family of four or more persons generally cannot afford suitable rental housing. The average two-bedroom rental unit is affordable for most moderate-income families and households, and the average three-bedroom rental unit is affordable for most above-moderate income families and households. Unit Type Table A-35 Average Floor Area by Unit Type, 2008 City of San Luis Obispo Average Rent ($) Average Floor Area (sq. ft.) Income Groups That Can Afford Studio Most 1-Bedroom Some Low, Moderate, Above Moderate 2-Bedroom 1, Some Moderate, Above Moderate 3-Bedroom 2,030 1,063 Above Moderate Source: UCSB Economic Forecast of San Luis Obispo County,

97 5. Summary and Conclusions Appendix A describes the demographic factors affecting San Luis Obispo s housing market in They are: Population and household growth: Population growth has slowed significantly in the City from 2000 to Over this period, City population has remained stagnant, growing by only 523 persons to 44,697, which is an average annual growth rate of.1 percent. By 2015, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments projects that the City population will grow slightly to 44,910. However, they project that in the longer term, the population of the City will grow faster, at an average annual growth rate of 0.49 percent to Age Distribution: Both the City and the County have significantly higher proportions of young adults compared to the State due to the presence of the California Polytechnic State University and Cuesta College. In the City, fully one third of the population is in the year old age cohort that encompasses most college students. The City and County also have relatively high proportions of senior citizens aged 65 and over. The city has a significantly low share of school age children aged 5 to 17. Only 10.8 percent of the City s population is in this age group, compared to 20.0 percent for the State. Ethnicity: The 2000 U.S. Census found that 22.3 percent of the City s population was non- White, compared to 53.3 percent of the State. While not approaching the State distribution, the City is becoming more ethnically diverse. The California Department of Finance projects that by 2015 that 31.5 percent of the City s population will be non-white with the most rapid growth coming in Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander populations. Employment: The economic slowdown that his impacted the nation since late 2007 has had significant impacts on the local workforce. Unemployment reached 7.2 percent in November 2008, the highest level seen in the decade by two full percentage points. In 2002, the most recently city-level data on industries is available for the City, showed that the three industries offering the most jobs in the City were health care and social assistance, retail trade, and accommodation and food services. Household size and type: The City s average household size has declined slightly since the 1990s. As the average household size grows smaller, the existing housing stock accommodates fewer people. In 2008, non family households are 58 percent and family households about 41 percent. Household and family income: Despite significant growth in personal income during the last decade, San Luis Obispo City and County median incomes continue to lag behind other Central Coast counties and large urban areas to the north and south. However, family household incomes are comparable to Santa Barbara, Monterey County and the State. In 2008, 34 percent of household s incomes are less than $24,999. Female headed households and married couples are the largest two groups with incomes below the poverty level. 97

98 Housing Unit Size: Just over one-third of the City s housing stock consists of twobedroom units, with studio/one-bedroom units and three-bedroom units each accounting for about one quarter of the total housing units. Four-bedroom and larger dwellings comprise about 13 percent of the housing stock. It is interesting to note that unit size shifts markedly from owner-occupied to renter-occupied housing, with owner-occupied housing comprising most of the City s larger housing stock. Housing Inventory and Market Factors: Housing stock grew more slowly than the population. More single family dwellings were built than multi-family dwellings and there are more renters that owners in the City. Housing Affordability: Many people who live in San Luis Obispo overpay for housing, and many who work here cannot afford to live here. This issue has become more problematic from 2000 to 2008 as increases in the price to buy housing units have outpaced income increases. While the trend has begun to reverse since 2007, with housing prices dropping precipitously, these drops may be negated by possible drops in income if the economic slowdown persists. Rental costs have also increased between 2003 and 2008, with prices of different types of rental units increasing 10 to 20 percent. These high rental prices may have been driven by extremely low vacancy rates that occurred in the mid-2000s. However, vacancy rates have increased and rental prices may temporarily soften as a result of large-scale housing construction on the Cal Poly campus. 98

99 Appendix B Housing Needs Appendix B describes housing needs relative to various segments of the population, including groups with special housing needs. Several factors will shape the type and amount of housing demand or need in San Luis Obispo. The main factors driving housing need during the planning period are: Population and job growth, both in the City and in the County; Increased rate of household formation due to smaller households; Inability of extremely low, very low-, low and moderate income working adults to find suitable affordable housing near jobs; Growth of special needs groups such as the elderly, single-parent households, households with disabled persons, and homeless individuals and families. Analysis of the City s demographic factors suggests that while all but above-moderate income households will continue to have difficulty finding suitable affordable housing, the largest gap between housing supply and need will be for extremely low, low- and moderate income working people. First-time homebuyers' assistance and incentives for multi-family housing are in effect will continue to be critical tools in addressing these needs. 1. Regional Housing Needs Assessment Under State law, each city and county is to develop programs designed to meet its share of the region's housing needs for all income groups, as determined by the region s council of governments. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies housing needs for all regions of the State. Councils of governments then apportion the regional housing need among their member jurisdictions. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility, within its physical and financial capability to do so, for the housing needs of its residents and for those people who might reasonably be expected to move there. State housing law recognizes that housing need allocations are goals that jurisdictions seek to achieve; however, they are not intended as production quotas. The allocations are included in each jurisdiction s Housing Element so that plans, policies and standards may be created to help meet housing needs within this element's planning term. a) Existing Housing Needs That part of the RHNA process concerned with existing housing needs includes two subcategories: overpayment and overcrowding. 99

100 Households Overpaying for Housing Overpayment refers to households paying more than 30 percent of their gross income to secure adequate shelter. It is most common among extremely low, very low- and low-income households, although in high-cost housing markets such as San Luis Obispo, even moderate- and above-moderate income households often pay more than 30 percent of their incomes to secure adequate housing. However, high housing costs impact lower-income households most acutely because lower- and fixed-income households must use a disproportionately higher percentage of their incomes for housing and typically have the least financial flexibility to meet other basic needs. For these individuals, the eventual result may be a series of financial problems leading to housing deterioration, as limited funds must be used for more immediate needs, or the result may be an entire loss of housing. For the community, it could mean overcrowding as households seek to maximize income to meet housing costs, a visible decline in housing conditions and appearance, neighborhood parking shortages and other related problems. Overpayment for rental housing has been a continuing problem in San Luis Obispo. The 1990 Census indicated that in 1989, 62 percent of renter households paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing, while 20 percent of owner households paid more than 30 percent. Countywide, very low- and low-income households also have a higher incidence of overpaying for housing, with many paying more than one-half of their incomes for housing, a level referred to by HUD as severe cost burden. Census 2000 indicates that in 1999, 61 percent of the City s 10,858 renter households, or about 6,600 households, overpaid for housing. The figures also show that of the City s 4,243 homeowners with home mortgages, 37 percent, or 1,570 households, overpaid for housing. This translates into an estimated 8,170 of San Luis Obispo households paying more than 30 percent of their gross income for housing. For some, overpaying is a choice to secure housing of a certain type, location or quality. For many others, it is a necessity to meet basic housing needs. However, in San Luis Obispo, overpayment figures may be misleading. On one hand, the percentage of households overpaying may significantly understate the problem, since high housing costs force many to seek affordable housing outside the City. Those unable to afford any housing in San Luis Obispo are not reflected in the figures. Conversely, the numbers may overstate the problem in that many San Luis Obispo renters are students. Most student households, including families headed by students, are nominally in the lower income categories but have significant financial resources due to parental support, loans or savings that is not reflected in their current income levels. Nevertheless, rising housing costs and relatively slow income growth are well documented, affirming that overpayment is a serious and ongoing problem in San Luis Obispo. 100

101 Overcrowding High housing prices often force lower-income households to accept smaller housing units, resulting in overcrowding. Overcrowding can have serious housing and neighborhood consequences. It places additional demands on housing facilities, neighborhood parking, community infrastructure and services, and can eventually contribute to deterioration of the housing stock and the neighborhood. The U.S. Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms). Historically, overcrowding has not been a problem in San Luis Obispo. The 1990 Census figures showed that City and County overcrowding rates for renter-occupied units were both relatively low compared with statewide figures and 11 percent, respectively, compared with 20 percent Statewide. Only one percent of the City's owneroccupied units were overcrowded, compared with three percent in the County of San Luis Obispo and six percent Statewide. Table B-1 compares overcrowding figures for the City and County of San Luis Obispo and the State of California in Census data indicate that the percentages of overcrowded rental units in the City and County have declined since 1990, from 10 and 11 percent to 7.5 and 10.1, respectively. City and County figures for overcrowding remain relatively low compared to the State. In San Luis Obispo, among the 10,858 renter households in 2000, an estimated 814 households were overcrowded. For owner-occupied housing, San Luis Obispo has significantly fewer people per room than either the County or State, with almost 99 percent of owner households averaging one person or fewer per room. About 100 of the City s 7,795 owneroccupied households were overcrowded. City County State Table B-1 Residential Overcrowding in the City and County of San Luis Obispo, and State of California, 2000 Percent of all renter-occupied housing units, by number of occupants per room 1.00 person or fewer Source: U.S. Census persons Percent of all owner-occupied housing units, by number of occupants per room 1.00 person or fewer persons Another measure of residential overcrowding is the number of persons per occupied housing unit, or average household size. In 1990, the U.S. Census showed an average of 2.39 persons per

102 occupied rental housing unit in the City of San Luis Obispo, compared with 2.53 and 2.79 in the County and State, respectively. According to Census 2000, average household size in the City declined slightly from 1990 levels. Table B-2 compares average household size between the City, County and State in Table B-2 Average Household Size by Tenure, in the City and County of San Luis Obispo, and State of California, 2000 Renter Occupied Owner Occupied Average City 2.19 persons County State Source: U.S. Census 2000 Overcrowding has been a concern due to students or other groups of unrelated adults sharing housing in low- and medium-density (R-1 and R-2) residential neighborhoods. Concerns centered on the fact that most detached houses in R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods were not designed to accommodate groups of adults, and that high occupancies can adversely affect persons living under crowded conditions, reduce neighborhood parking, contribute to noise and privacy conflicts, and can result in an overall reduction in the quality of life for neighborhood residents. In response to these concerns, the City Council adopted an ordinance in February of 1990 that requires households with six or more adult occupants in the R-1 and R-2 zones to secure approval of an administrative use permit and meet standards related to parking, floor space per individual, and number of bathrooms. b) Housing Needs for In San Luis Obispo County, the San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments (SLOCOG) is charged with allocating the region s assigned housing needs among seven cities and the unincorporated County areas. The numbers supplied by the State's Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) are goal numbers and are not intended as production quotas. State law recognizes that a jurisdiction s ability to meet regional housing needs within the planning period may be constrained by several factors. Government Code Section States: It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) (i.e., through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA process) may exceed available resources and the community s ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Government Code Sections Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need not be identical to the total housing needs. Jurisdictions must accommodate the RHNA numbers in their Housing Elements or explain why their quantified housing objectives differ and identify actions the jurisdiction will take to remove constraints to achieving the RHNA number. These numbers apply to the planning term from January 2007 through December Each jurisdiction s total need is broken down by income group. These needs are then included in each jurisdiction s housing element as residential 102

103 growth objectives for which the jurisdiction tailors its plans, policies and standards to be accomplished within the planning term. In October, 2008, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments approved San Luis Obispo County s Regional Housing Needs Plan incorporating the State s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) housing need determination of 4,885 in San Luis Obispo County, down from the 2003 RHNA of 18,035 units. The approved Regional Housing Needs Plan is shown in Table B-3. Table B-3 Regional Housing Needs Plan For the County of San Luis Obispo January 2010 December 2014 Housing Need Allocation Very Low Income 23% 1 Low Income 16% 2 Moderate Income 19% 3 Number of Units Above Moderate 42% 4 Totals Arroyo Grande Atascadero Grover Beach Morro Bay Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo ,589 Unincorporated Co ,295 Totals 1, ,046 4,885 Source: San Luis Obispo Council of Governments 1 Percent of total housing need in each jurisdiction. 2 Grover Beach and Arroyo Grande s Low Income RHNA set at 17%. 3 Morro Bay and Pismo Beach s Moderate Income RHNA set at 18%. 4 Pismo Beach s Above Moderate RHNA set at 43%. A jurisdiction s housing need allocation is the number of additional dwellings necessary to accommodate expected growth in the number of households, and to: 1) replace expected demolitions and conversions to non-residential use, 2) achieve an ideal vacancy rate (five to eight percent) that allows adequate housing choice, and 3) avoid concentrating lower-income housing in areas that already have disproportionately high proportions of lower income 103

104 households. Total housing need is broken down by household income categories used in State and Federal programs: extremely low, very-low, low, moderate, and above-moderate income. As shown in Table B-3, San Luis Obispo s allocation is 1,589 dwellings, one-third of the County s total housing need allocation. c) Extremely Low-Income Households Local governments have typically used four different income categories to describe and plan for housing needs: very-low, low, moderate and above moderate Income levels. State law now requires quantification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs of extremely lowincome (ELI) households. ELI is defined as 30 percent of area median income and below. Table B-4 shows the relationship of the five household income categories, projected number of households in each category and the percentage of households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing. Table B-4 Household Income Categories, Area Median Income, and Estimated Number of Households by Income Category, San Luis Obispo City Income Category Percent of SLO County Median Family Income Median Income, 4- Person Households ($) Renter Households Owner Households Total Households Extremely Low Income Less than 30% 21,250 3, ,110 % of HH paying >30% for housing Very Low Income Between 31% and 50% 34,400 2, ,513 % of HH paying >30% for housing Low Income Between 51% and 80% 56,650 2,096 1,098 3,194 % of HH paying >30% for housing

105 Moderate Income Between 81% and 120% 84,950 3,068 5,728 8,796 % of HH paying >30% for housing Total Extremely Low, Low and Moderate Income Households 10, , , % of HH paying >30% for housing San Luis Obispo Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data, Extremely low-income is defined as an income of less than 30 percent of the area median income. In 2009, San Luis Obispo County s median income for a four-person household is $70,800. For extremely low income households, this results in an income of $21,250 or less for a four-person household or $14,900 or less for a one-person household. Households with extremely low-incomes have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as social security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance, are considered extremely low-income households. At the same time, a minimum wage worker could be considered an extremely low-income household with an annual income of approximately $24,700 or less. The following are examples of occupations with wages that could qualify as extremely low income households. Occupation Title Median Hourly Wage Hotel and Resort Clerk Child Care Workers Housekeepers Manicurists and Pedicurists Hosts and Hostesses Education, Training and Library Workers Agricultural Graders and Sorters Waiters and Waitresses Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers Existing Needs In 2000, approximately 4,110 extremely low-income households resided in the City, representing 22 percent of the total households. Most (85.8 percent) extremely low-income households are renters and experience a high incidence of housing problems. For example, according to the 105

106 City s 2000 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), over 85 percent of extremely low-income households faced housing problems (defined as a housing cost burden greater than 30 percent of income and/or overcrowding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities) and 83 percent paid more than 30 percent for the income for housing. Moreover, 74 percent of extremely low-income households paid more than 50 percent of their income toward housing costs, compared to 27 percent for all City households. Projected Needs To calculate the projected housing needs, the City assumed one-half of its assigned very lowincome regional housing need is comprised of extremely low-income households. As a result, from the very low income need of 370 units, the City has a projected need of 185 units for extremely low-income households. Many extremely low-income households will be seeking rental housing and most likely facing an overpayment, overcrowded or substandard housing condition. Some extremely low-income households face mental or other disabilities and special needs. To address this need, the City will employ a diversified strategy including promoting construction of a variety of housing types, such as single-room occupancy (SRO) units, preservation of extremely-low and very-low housing, and residential rehabilitation assistance. For example, with respect to single-room occupancy units, the City already allows SRO housing by right in three of its four residential zones (R-2, R-3 and R-4), and has provided $1.5 million to assist development of SRO housing in the Downtown core. For a more detailed analysis of the different housing types, refer to Tables A-19 and A-20. Extremely low-income households often need supportive housing and are particularly vulnerable to becoming homeless due the local high housing costs and limited incomes. Supportive housing is generally defined as permanent, affordable housing with on-site services that help residents transition into safer and more stable living conditions. Needed services may include childcare, after-school tutoring, career counseling, etc. Most transitional housing includes a supportive services component. City regulations allow supportive housing by right as a residential use, provided supportive services are subordinate to the residential use. To address the housing needs of extremely low-income households, the City will identity opportunities to work with for-profit developers to secure ELI units as a condition of approval for market rate units, and with nonprofit builders who specialize in building housing for extremely low-income households and supportive housing. This effort is designed to: Build a long-term partnership with development groups; Gain access to specialized funding sources, including funding sources that support deeper subsidies for ELI housing; Identify the range of local resources and assistance needed to facilitate the development of housing for extremely low-income households, and 106

107 Promote a variety of housing types, including higher density, multifamily supportive, single room occupancy and shared housing. As described in Program 3.14, the City will work with its nonprofit partners to develop housing for extremely low-income households. Possible activities include organization capacity building, assisting with site identification and acquisition, providing local financial resources (Affordable Housing funds, CDBG and HOME funds), City fee waivers, assisting and streamlining entitlements and through the use of flexible development standards and incentives. 2. Special Housing Needs Certain segments of the population may have more difficulty finding decent, affordable housing due to their specific circumstances. In San Luis Obispo, this may include elderly persons, large families, female-headed households, the disabled, homeless and farm workers a) Elderly Persons Census 2000 shows that the City s proportion of seniors continues to increase. In 1980 the percentage of City residents 65 years of age or older was 11.5, and by 1990 that figure increased to 12.2 percent. In 2000, 12.3 percent, or roughly 5,400 city residents, were 65 year of age or older, compared with 14.5 percent in the County and 10.5 percent Statewide. According to the Census, there are 2,763 owner-occupied households in the City headed by persons 65 years or over and 849 renter-occupied households headed by persons 65 years or over. Households with persons age 65 years or older comprise 19.4% of the total occupied households. Elderly persons may need regular medical care, special residential access features, home medical equipment or trained medical care, transportation and opportunities to socialize. Those with moderate- or above-moderate incomes can usually afford to accommodate those needs. However, many elderly citizens have fixed or low incomes and do not own a home. They must compete for rentals with other small households that may have greater financial resources, or may have the potential for greater income in the future. Those low-income, elderly people who do own homes may have difficulty affording property maintenance costs, or meeting special accessibility or mobility needs such as ramps, handrails, door widths, counters and cupboard height and design. Due to limited mobility or health issues, elderly people may have a more difficult time meeting their personal needs, such as shopping, health or other errands, making their housing locations especially important. According to Census figures, 1,152 elderly San Luis Obispo residents almost a quarter of city residents age 65 or older have physical disabilities, self-care or mobility limitations. 107

108 Disability and Mobility Status Total of persons > 65 years of age Physical disability only Mobility limitation only Self-care limitation only two or more limitations, including self-care limitations Totals Source: U.S. Census 2000 Table B-5 Elderly Mobility and Disability Status, 2000 City of San Luis Obispo Male % of Total Persons > 65 years old 108 Female % of Total Persons > 65 years old Totals 2, , ,120 (100%) (8.5%) (4.2%) (9.7%) ,152 (22.4%) Elderly residents who own their homes are in relatively good positions financially. Given the high cost of housing in the area, some could sell their homes for a profit and use it to purchase a smaller apartment or condominium, or for a residential care facility if needed. However, seniors on fixed incomes with few assets have a more difficult time securing housing. Based on requests to the City's Housing Authority for housing affordable to the elderly, there is a clear need for more subsidized elderly housing in the City. With the aging of the so-called "baby-boom" generation born in the 1950s, and with longer life expectancies, the need for suitable housing and related services is expected to grow. According to Census 2000, 233 elderly San Luis Obispo citizens had incomes below the poverty threshold. Residential Care Facilities San Luis Obispo has a limited number of residential care facilities and special housing geared toward the elderly. Residential care homes may also serve youths, adults, the disabled and those in drug and alcohol recovery programs. In 2003 the City had 44 facilities providing housing for special needs groups. Table B-6 summarizes special needs housing and residential care facilities

109 in San Luis Obispo in Table B-6 Special Needs Housing and Residential Care Facilities, 2003 City of San Luis Obispo Type of Facility Total Number of Facilities Total Capacity/Persons Group homes/shelters Adult residential 2 22 Disabled Large families Elderly 12 1,338 Drug and alcohol 2 10 Total 44 2,360 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department b) Large Families According to the Census, 1,052 households, or about six percent of San Luis Obispo's households, consist of "large families. Large families are defined as households with five or more persons, at least two of which are related by blood, marriage or adoption. Large families are included as a special needs group because they typically require larger dwellings with more bedrooms than typically needed by most households. Large families require dwellings with six or more rooms, and of these, three or more are probably bedrooms. According to the 2000 Census, the City's housing stock contained about 6,000 large dwellings with six or more rooms, or 31 percent of the housing stock. Large families face the dual challenge of finding an adequately sized dwelling at a cost that they can afford. These families often have the largest affordability gap in securing housing among the special needs groups. This is especially true for renter households, since most of the City s larger dwellings are owner occupied. Of the City s roughly 7,500 dwellings with three or more bedrooms, two-thirds are owner occupied. The remainder, about 2,500 large, rental housing units, is often priced for the student housing market. On a per-person rental basis, a three-bedroom student rental house can often generate larger rents than if it were rented to a single family. In 2008, average rent for a three bedroom unit was $2,030 per month. For low-income residents in a four-person household, the maximum affordable rent in 2008 was $1,340 and for moderate income residents it was $2,010. It is evident from the Census that there is a sufficient number of large dwellings to accommodate the numbers of large families in the City. However, data also show that lower-income households are priced out of both the ownership and rental housing markets for that type of housing. Moderate income families may be able to afford rental costs for large dwellings; however, a tight student-housing market coupled with relatively low vacancy rates (averaging 109

110 less than five percent) make it more difficult for families to secure large dwellings. Large lowand moderate income families will continue to be one of the most seriously affected housing consumer groups in the City. Market-rate housing options for this segment of the population are mostly overcrowded, multi-family units or poorly maintained single-family houses. The production of more on-campus, student apartments may help to make available more rental housing suitable for large families. Table B-7 Large Households by Tenure, 2000 City of San Luis Obispo Number of Persons in Unit Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Five Six Seven or More Total ,052 Percent of Total Households Source: U.S. Census 2000 Universe: Occupied housing units, N=18,653 c) Female-Headed Households In 2000, females headed seven percent of the City s households, or an estimated 1,309 households with no husband present. By comparison, about 8.9 percent of county households and 12.2 percent of State households are female-headed. Female-headed households are included as a special needs group because of their low rate of homeownership, lower average incomes and relatively high poverty rates. This group's housing needs are similar to those of the elderly in that affordability, limited income and access to services are key concerns. Femaleheaded households have space needs similar to two-parent households, but are at a distinct disadvantage in competing for suitable housing with the financial resources of only one adult. Often, the single parent must settle for a small dwelling that does not meet the household s needs, or must spend a disproportionately large share of the household's monthly income on housing and child care. Housing close to employment, schools and services tends to be more desirable and therefore more expensive. In their search for affordable housing, families are often forced to trade the convenience of proximity for affordability. As the distance between work, school, daycare and the grocery store is increased, so is the time spent connecting the stops, leaving less time for the family to spend together, a particularly difficult situation for single-parent families. Table B-8 shows the number of female-headed households in Of the total female-headed households, 264 were listed as having incomes below the poverty level. 110

111 Table B-8 Female-headed Households, 2000 City of San Luis Obispo Household Type Total Percent of Total Households Female-headed households (with own children under 18 years) Female-headed households (without own children under 18 years) Totals 1, % Source: U.S. Census 2000 Universe: All city households Affordable housing needs of female-headed households can be addressed through rent assistance, low- and moderate income housing production, shared equity/down payment assistance and group housing. Housing opportunities also can be improved through city policies calling for the provision of affordable childcare, and by locating family-oriented housing developments close to major employment areas, transportation facilities and shopping. d) Disabled Persons As shown in Table B-9, about 14 percent of City residents reported some type of disability on the 2000 Census. Access and affordability are two major issues that may limit housing choices for disabled people. This group is included as having special housing needs because people living with disabilities often need facilities not typically provided in conventional housing. Depending on the disability, special accommodations may include specially designed interior features and accessibility provisions outside the unit. California Administrative Code Title 24 sets access and adaptability requirements for persons living with disabilities, and these apply to most new residential and commercial developments. The regulations require special architectural features to meet the needs of disabled persons, including access ramps, accessible restrooms and appropriately designed interior features. These requirements do not apply to single-family residential construction. 111

112 Table B-9 Persons Reporting Mobility or Self-Care Limitations, 2000 City of San Luis Obispo Mobility Limitation Only Self-Care Limitation Only 112 Mobility and Self-Care Limitation Total Persons Persons , , Persons 65+ 1, , Totals 4, , Source: U.S. Census 2000 Universe: Civilian non-institutionalized population > five years. % Of Population (N=42,174) Convalescent homes and assisted residential-care facilities provide limited medical care in an institutional setting. They usually accommodate older residents and others who do not need acute medical care but who cannot live independently. Since 1994 several new residential care/assisted living facilities have been built, catering mainly to elderly and disabled persons. These range in services from apartments for relatively independent living in a group setting to residential care facilities with full, onsite support services, including personal and medical care. As shown in Table B-6, San Luis Obispo has residential care facilities, apartments or group homes that can accommodate about 1,618 elderly or disabled residents. Other adults, who need less medical attention than is provided by a convalescent home, are accommodated by an increasing number of small group homes (discussed below). Those with multiple or severe disabilities, usually both physical and mental, require group living arrangements where care and supervision can be provided. San Luis Obispo has one large facility with about 90 occupants and one smaller facility for infants and young children. The demand for such accommodations is expected to grow at about the same rate as the overall population. Sites for large facilities of this type are limited in number, although moderate-sized and smaller facilities could be accommodated in many residential areas throughout the City. Persons with mental or physical disabilities who do not need medical supervision but are not able to live independently can usually be accommodated in large or small group homes. Small residential care facilities typically accommodate between six and 12 people, and provide beds, meals and 24-hour assistance by caregivers. According to AIDS Support Network of San Luis Obispo, there are an estimated persons in San Luis Obispo suffering from HIV/AIDS and related illnesses. Those suffering from HIV/AIDS have specific supportive housing needs. The main housing problem for this group is housing affordability, since in many cases, the HIV/AIDS patient can no longer hold down a job. Mobility also is an issue, as a large percentage of this group is dependent upon public transit. There are 12 apartments in San Luis Obispo (two facilities) exclusively for this group, able to

113 accommodate up to 24 persons, plus another eight units available through the City of San Luis Obispo Housing Authority (with a capacity for 16 people), as available. HIV/AIDS patients also live in public housing for very low- and low-income persons, through the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo. e) Homeless Persons, Transitional Housing and Supportive Services The homeless population in San Luis Obispo appears to be increasing, possibly due to increased unemployment, continued high housing costs, statewide economic factors and changes in the make up of the homeless population. Historically, most homeless people were young or middleaged men, often with little education or with alcohol or drug dependencies. However, in the last decade, homelessness in San Luis Obispo has become more visible. Steeply rising housing costs, reductions in public assistance and other economic changes have increased the number of homeless to include families with children and adults with disabilities or chronic health problems. The growing shortage of rental housing affordable to extremely low, very low and low income households further limits housing options for persons on the brink of homelessness. Homelessness is inherently difficult to quantify because it is often a transitional situation, dependent upon a household s or individual s changing economic condition or location. Lacking permanent housing, homeless persons are often missed in census surveys and other community inventories. Due to a Homeless Enumeration Study and Report completed by the Homeless Services Coordinating Council, County of San Luis Obispo and Cal Poly University, San Luis Obispo, however, a much clearer picture of homelessness in San Luis Obispo City and County has emerged. The enumeration s main findings are summarized below, and provided the foundation for preparation of a 10-year Plan to End Homelessness in San Luis Obispo County. While this section focuses on the homeless population of San Luis Obispo City, the 2009 Enumeration Report provides information on the entire County and is available through the County of San Luis Obispo at the link provided in Appendix L, Housing Resources/Public Outreach. According to the Draft Report (spring 2009), there are three basic homeless groups: 1) the chronically homeless, a group characterized by long-term homelessness and physical or mental disabilities, 2) the episodic homeless, or persons who alternate between permanent housing and supportive housing or shelters, and 3) the transitional homeless, characterized by persons who become temporarily homeless due to some catastrophic event, such as sudden loss of employment or a serious medical problem. Far from what are often stereotyped views of the homeless, the Report found considerable variation in age, background, economic status, reasons for homelessness and other characteristics. For example, the report indicates that homeless persons include families and single mothers with children, individuals with serious mental or physical disabilities who lack access to proper care, and workers who have lost their jobs. A majority of those counted have a high school education, some college, or even a college degree, and many homeless persons are employed. A majority County's homeless are also long-term residents rather than transients, either having grown up in the County or having relatives who live in the area. Another aspect San Luis Obispo County's homeless population is that different regions show different proportions of the three homeless 113

114 groups: families and single parents with children are more common in North and South County than in the City of San Luis Obispo, and the homeless tend to be more ethnically diverse in North and South County than SLO City and have a higher proportion of working homeless persons. According to the 2009 Draft Report, 3,829 homeless persons were living in San Luis Obispo County in 2009, of which 1,025 persons, or 36.1 percent, were based in the City of San Luis Obispo. Approximately 1,372, or about one-fourth of the County s total homeless persons counted, were under the age of 21. In the City, 25 percent of homeless persons are female, compared to 37 percent for the entire County. The mean age of homeless persons in the City was 43 years, compared with 44 for the County as a whole. Of the County s total number of homeless counted, 27 percent were in the north county, 16 percent in the south county, 36 percent were in the City of San Luis Obispo, 19 percent in unincorporated county areas, and 2 percent were counted in the north coast. In terms of sleeping arrangements, of the County s total number of homeless persons observed and interviewed (N=342), 25 percent regularly slept outside, 23 percent in a shelter or transitional housing, 21 percent slept in a car, camper or other vehicle, 18 percent with family or friends, and 10 percent in a hotel. The two largest facilities providing homeless services in the County are located in San Luis Obispo: 1) the Maxine Lewis Memorial Homeless Shelter, a 49-bed shelter that provides showers, clothes, free morning and evening meals, client mail and phone services year-round, and 2) the Prado Day Center, which supplies lunch for an average of 87 people each day and other services to over 121 people daily, with children comprising about 7 percent. The Day Center provides a supportive environment for individuals and families needing life services and a home base during the day. Clients have onsite access to showers, phones, mail, daytime meals, laundry and a range of public and private service providers, including job counselors and access to transitional housing. In addition, the Women s Shelter of San Luis Obispo County is located in the City, providing facilities for homeless, displaced or abused women and children. While small, temporary homeless facilities have been available in North and South County, San Luis Obispo remains the center of homeless services and facilities for the County. Both the Maxine Lewis Homeless Shelter and the Prado Road Day Center are located in San Luis Obispo City and supported, in large part, through City and County funding. In addition, the Community Action Partnership (formerly Economic Opportunity Commission of San Luis Obispo County) works in partnership with the Interfaith Coalition for the Homeless to provide overflow sheltering all year around. A different church hosts the overflow program each month, providing beds nightly. In 2008, approximately 690 homeless persons receive one or more nights of overflow emergency shelter and assistance in San Luis Obispo City. The magnitude of the homeless problem is evident from the number and range of services provided in 2002 compared with During 2002, the Homeless Shelter served 980 different people, totaling 27,006 shelter-nights. Each bed-night included a hot meal for the homeless guest, while an additional 6,312 meals were served to people who were not staying at the shelter. 114

115 On the average, 67 people receive shelter nightly, and an additional 19 persons are given a free evening meal. At the Prado Center, 958 different homeless people were served, with a total of 30,547 units of services provided (number of client contacts for a variety of referral, informational and advocacy purposes). In fiscal year 2008, 726 different persons received a total of 30, 492 shelter nights. More than 33 percent of clients were women and children and more than 29 percent of adults were disabled. An average of 73 persons per night received shelter year-around between the two San Luis Obispo shelter sites. A total of 59,032 meals were served in fiscal year 2008, including 5,748 meals to dinner/dashers, or persons who came to the shelter for dinner and a shower but not for a shelter bed. An average of 81 homeless persons received meals daily. At the Prado Day Center, 1,437 homeless people were served, with a total of 44,044 homeless services provided during The 2009 homeless enumeration data show that significant numbers of homeless persons are living in cars, campers, city creeks and open space areas and do not avail themselves of the homeless shelters. Homeless service providers require that to receive services at the shelters, homeless persons must sign in and must not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. For these and other reasons, many homeless people in San Luis Obispo remain invisible in terms of their numbers and the services provided to them. Transitional Housing and Supportive Services A primary goal is to help homeless individuals and families achieve a measure of stability and enable them to transition to safe, secure housing. Transitional housing gives homeless people a stable environment while they seek employment or learn life skills towards self-sufficiency. San Luis Obispo non-profit agencies, including the Community Action Partnership (formerly EOC ), Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, and Mental Health Transitions, and San Luis Obispo County Social Services use a continuum of care approach that places clients in supportive housing in San Luis Obispo City. For example, Mental Health Transitions manages seven congregate living houses in San Luis Obispo, providing 39 beds and serving a range of needs including homeless persons, disabled persons and persons with substance abuse issues. In the last 20 years, San Luis Obispo City has spent virtually all of it Community Development Block Grant public services funds each year on homeless services, yet existing facilities cannot fully meet the need for shelter or services. Some of the unmet service and shelter needs will be met by faith-based organizations and other service groups locally and in North and South County that have begun to offer homeless support services, using both public and private funding sources and volunteer staffs. In 2008, a countywide task force prepared a 10-year plan to end homelessness and the Homeless Services Coordinating Team is working to identify one or more potential sites for a homeless services campus in San Luis Obispo. To help homeless persons transition from emergency to permanent or semi-permanent shelter, the City and its housing authority helps fund transitional housing throughout the City. City 115

116 zoning regulations allow transitional housing as a compatible use in residential zones, consistent with State law. Transitional housing accommodating up to six persons in more traditional residential surroundings is allowed by right wherever dwellings are allowed and is allowed in five commercial zones with approval of a conditional use permit. Transitional housing serving seven or more persons is allowed by right wherever dwellings are allowed, and in four commercial zones with approval of a conditional use permit. Transitional housing, typically lasting from six months to two years, is more than just group housing. It includes a broad ranges of housing types, from detached houses with up to five adults, to boarding houses with more than five adult residents. Transitional housing in San Luis Obispo typically includes a resident manager with visiting staff providing counseling, health care, education and other services. Those recovering from alcohol and other drug dependencies and those making the transition from institutional environments to more independent living can benefit from sheltered and supervised accommodations, or transitional housing." Demand for facilities of this type can be met through houses for six or fewer residents and additional medium-sized facilities. Under the City s Zoning Regulations, such facilities are deemed Adult Residential-care Facilities and, provided they are State-licensed, are permitted in all residential zones. Demand for such facilities is expected to grow at about the same rate as the overall population. Table B-10 lists homeless and transitional facilities in San Luis Obispo. Table B-10 Emergency Shelter and Transitional Housing Facilities, City of San Luis Obispo Name - Agency Number of Beds Population Served Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter Community Action Partnership of SLO County San Luis Obispo Womens Shelter Adult Transitional Housing - TMHA Transitional Housing for Homeless TMHA Congregate care housing - TMHA 75 (49 plus overflow) Single homeless adults and families with children 42 Women and children 12 Single adults 17 Single adults 13 Single adults Total Beds 159 The Urban County s 2005 Consolidated Plan describes the County s and participating cities major objectives for use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. It targets a Continuum of Care approach for addressing homelessness on a regional basis. Each participating community, including the City of San Luis Obispo, is encouraged to provide a 116

117 range of homeless services, including outreach and assessment, basic emergency shelter, emergency services, counseling and case management and transitional and permanent housing. In 2008, however, total funding available for public services (15 percent of total CDBG funding) countywide is approximately $309,000 annually (down from $388,000 in 2004). This amount is not adequate to meet the countywide need for homeless operating expenses or capital improvements. SB 2 Compliance PF Zoning and Homeless Shelters In keeping with SB 2 requirements, the City has amended its Zoning Regulations to allow homeless shelters by right in at least one zone in the City. In 2009, the City identified the PF or Public Facility zone as being the most appropriate zone to accommodate homeless facilities. There are approximately 425 acres of PF-zoned land in the City of San Luis Obispo and of this, approximately 200 acres is under City ownership. The balance is owned primarily by the County of San Luis Obispo, the San Luis Obispo Coastal Unified School District, and the State of California. Most of the properties are developed with public uses and buildings. Some of the properties include sufficient vacant or unused land which could be used for a homeless shelter, either as infill or as part of land use changes. City and County efforts have focused on identifying a site in San Luis Obispo which could serve as a homeless services campus to meet a range of homeless services needs, including shelter, food services, educational and counseling services, administration, and other supportive services. The new site would replace the Maxine Lewis Shelter on Orcutt Road and serve as a homeless services campus. Site searches in San Luis Obispo have focused on properties of at least one acre, in the PF zone or other publiclyowned property suitable for rezoning to PF. Following are several examples of properties meeting these criteria: 43 Prado Road (48.06 acres) City of San Luis Obispo Corporation Yard and Prado Day Center; approximately 2 acres available for development South Higuera (1.04 acres) County of San Luis Obispo, vacant developable site Los Osos Valley Road (5.44 acres) San Luis Coastal Unified School District; developed with a continuation high school slated for possible sale or change of use. The County-owned site is zoned C-S-SP and has been identified as meeting the size criterion, although its C-S zoning would require rezoning to PF or approval of a conditional use permit to allow a homeless shelter. Its location adjacent to the existing County Social Services Center and close to major transit routes would be consistent with General Plan land use policies for PF zoning. The PF zone is intended to provide for the wide range of public uses likely to be located on public property, including public buildings, parks, and other facilities with public uses. Public uses are those conducted by governmental or nonprofit agencies. However, this zone also provides for complementary private and commercial uses which, within the overall guidance of the general plan, provide a public benefit. Homeless shelters fit this land use classification well because PF zones are typically publicly-owned, have excellent public access and public 117

118 transportation, and already provide various types of public services. While the Regulations already allow homeless shelters in the PF zone by right, Program 8.19 will implement SB 2 by incorporating state-allowed standards for homeless shelters into the Regulations within one year of element adoption. Homeless Shelters are allowed by right in the PF (Public Facility) zone, and allowed with use permit approval in the R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential, R-4 (High Density Residential), O (Office), C-N (Neighborhood Commercial), C-C (Community Commercial), C-D (Downtown Commercial), C-R (Retail Commercial), C-S (Service Commercial), C-T (Tourist Commercial), and M (Manufacturing) zones. f) Farm workers The City of San Luis Obispo is in the County's central coastal agricultural region. San Luis Obispo City is, for the most part, urbanized with only a few small farms still engaged in agricultural production. According to the 2000 Census, about 0.9 percent of the City s labor force over 16 years of age work in the agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting industries, or approximately 181 persons. Since less than one percent of the City s labor force works in agriculture, it follows that few farm workers actually work or live in the City. The primary factors with regard to farm worker housing are affordability, proximity to jobs and bilingual services for predominantly Spanish-speaking residents. High housing costs make it extremely difficult to meet farm worker housing needs in San Luis Obispo. Agriculture is one of San Luis Obispo County s primary industries; however it is difficult to determine how many farm workers live in the County or City. Some are permanent residents and others are seasonal migratory workers. The state Employment Development Department (EDD) compiles farm employment information, but has no statistics on highly mobile or undocumented workers. EDD reports 5,200 workers in the farm industry, county wide, as of 2002, nearly doubling since 1990, when EDD reported 2,700 workers. According to the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), there were 7,596 farm labor workers in San Luis Obispo County in 2002 (USDA 2002 Census of Farm workers). Of the 7,596 workers reported, 3,826 were permanent (more than 150 days), and 3,770 were seasonal (less than 150 days). A 1993 study on farm worker housing in San Luis Obispo prepared by the People's Self-Help Housing Corporation indicated that while there was some need for farm worker housing in the City, the strongest needs for farm worker housing were in other, more predominantly agricultural areas such as Paso Robles, Shandon, Nipomo and Arroyo Grande. In 2003, about 33 acres remain in agricultural use within the City. The most intensive agricultural activity in the San Luis Obispo area is located in the Edna Valley, just south of the City. In the last decade, this area has experienced a rapid increase in wine grape production and has generated a need for additional farm worker housing. While the majority of farm worker housing needs will continue to be met in North and South County areas closer to large farms, vineyards and ranches, there is still a need for an estimated 100 to 200 housing units suitable for farm worker families in San Luis Obispo during the planning period. Like most special needs housing, farm worker housing is largely dependent on city policies and implementation measures to provide for varied housing options, including 118

119 inclusionary housing, can be utilized to assist farm employees as a subset of low income employees. This can be important since farm employees often have the same needs as other low income citizens (access to services, day care, schools, public transportation). Having policies and implementation efforts which lead to the development of affordable housing can benefit farm employees even when it is not targeted specifically to farm employees. For example, a recent development project in the City of Atascadero by Habitat For Humanity provided housing for two long-term farm employees in the county because they passed through Habitat's screening, not because the housing was specifically targeted for farm employees. Farm workers housing needs may be met through the development of additional extremely low and very low income public housing, mixed-, low- and moderate income housing through the Inclusionary Housing Program, and First-Time Homebuyer Assistance to provide gap loans and/or grants for low-income families hoping to purchase housing. Farm worker housing is not treated any differently than other types of single-family, multi-family, or group housing (e.g. boarding/rooming houses or dormitories). Farm worker housing is allowed in up to nine zone districts wherever other types of dwellings are allowed. g) Students It is estimated that Cal Poly State University and Cuesta College students comprise more than one third of the City's population. As a result, students strongly influence the City s housing supply and demand. Although often grouped into low-income categories statistically, many students can spend more on housing than income data suggests because of parental support or larger household sizes. By pooling their housing funds, groups of students can often afford more expensive housing than non-student households. This contributes to higher rents in San Luis Obispo than in other parts of the County. Cal Poly s student population is approximately 19,470 (Cal Poly, Fall 2009). In fall 2009, Cal Poly had on-campus housing available for 6,200 students, with approximately 32 percent of the Cal Poly student population housed on campus. The other 68 percent, including married and graduate students, either find housing elsewhere in the City of San Luis Obispo or in other communities throughout the County. In fall 2002, the most recent year data was available, about 12,300 Cal Poly students, or two-thirds of the University s total enrollment of 18,453, lived in the City. According to Cuesta College, approximately 3,263 students, or 33 percent of total enrollment, made San Luis Obispo home in fall Hence, an estimated 15,600 college students live in San Luis Obispo and comprised about 35 percent of the City s January 2003 population. Cuesta College has no on-campus housing. Student housing preferences sometimes result in competition and conflicts with other segments of the City's population. Student housing complexes close to Cal Poly State University have, since the late 1990s, experienced high occupancy rates, prompting many students to seek alternative housing arrangements outside the immediate campus area. Many students choose to find apartments or condominiums elsewhere in the City, and increasingly, students choose to 119

120 share houses in single-family neighborhoods. The presence of students renting houses in neighborhoods sometimes leads to complaints from surrounding property owners due to lifestyle conflicts, parking congestion, noise and property maintenance concerns. Student lifestyles -- and thus, housing needs -- often differ from those of non-student households. Most Cal Poly students are young adults, have cars, many have part-time jobs, and most have classes any time from early morning to late at night. To meet these needs, student-oriented housing often includes: 1) a larger number of parking spaces in proportion to bedrooms than is required for "traditional" family housing; 2) individual study areas; 3) proximity to Cal Poly or transit; and 4) easy access to food services, laundromats and recreational facilities. Cal Poly State University and Cuesta College students are, on the average, relatively affluent, and many can afford housing that meets their needs. However, large apartment complexes in the City designed specifically for students experienced higher than normal vacancy rates in the early- to mid-1990s as many students chose instead to live in detached houses. Coming from family homes, many young students prefer the appearance, space, flexibility and freedom offered by detached houses, often located in "single-family neighborhoods." To afford rent, three or more students often live together and share costs. This means that homes designed to meet the needs of families are increasingly occupied by several unrelated adults. Because the homes were not designed to meet student needs or lifestyles, conflicts with the neighborhood residents sometimes arise. Common complaints are: 1) that there are too many cars on the rental property or parked on the public street; 2) that renters cause excessive noise and hold activities, including parties, until late at night; and 3) that the homes and grounds are not well maintained. A central feature of Cal Poly s Master Plan is to create several on-campus student residential communities accommodating approximately 3,000 additional students, and the provision of faculty and staff housing. With 6,200 students living on-campus, Cal Poly has the largest oncampus housing program in the California State University system. The Cal Poly Master Plan anticipates significant growth through 2010, when the student headcount is anticipated to reach 18,800 students. To help meet expanding enrollment, Cal Poly has developed three major residential projects: 1) Cerro Vista 200 apartments, each with 4 private apartments and shared kitchen, living room and two bathrooms, housing a total of 800 students. Cerro Vista opened in September ) Bella Montana 69 detached, below-market single-family houses for Cal Poly faculty and employees, located on State-owned land adjacent to Cal Poly campus. Two- and threebedroom models range in size from 1,029 to 1,614 square feet. The project was completed in summer ) Poly Canyon Village 618 apartments housing 2,661 students, plus 11,255 of retail floor area. The final phase opened in Fall

121 In all, 887 recently built dwellings located on or adjacent to Cal Poly campus will help reduce pressure on the City s rental and purchase housing market and help moderate rental cost increases by providing additional on-campus alternatives to the traditional dormitories. And while these new dwellings will help to address housing needs generated by Cal Poly enrollment growth during the planning period, they will not fully address the existing shortage of student housing. Student housing will continue to be a major housing need in the City. h) Fraternities and Sororities Another important concern is meeting the housing needs of student fraternities and sororities. "Greek" houses are allowed in medium-high- and high-density residential zones, with a Planning Commission use permit. In 2009, there are nine sororities and 18 fraternities that hold fraternal events and maintain a presence in San Luis Obispo. Of these, eight of the sororities and nine fraternities occupy fraternal houses owned or rented by the organizations. Student interest in joining fraternal organizations appears to be on the upswing. According to Cal Poly officials, about percent of Cal Poly students, or about 2900 students, are members of a fraternity or sorority. In 2004, about 1,550 Cal Poly students belonged to sororities or fraternities, or about nine percent of the student body. As part of Greek activities, many Cal Poly fraternities and sororities actively participate in beneficial university and community programs and events. In addition, they often host meetings, recruitment activities and social events that can have a negative impact on their neighbors. For example, on-street parking is affected, and noise and traffic levels often increase due to frequent visits by non-residents attending fraternal activities. When Greek housing is located close to non-student housing, compatibility conflicts sometimes arise. There are few large sites available that could accommodate a new fraternity or sorority and still satisfy parking and group meeting needs without posing neighborhood conflicts. Conflicts between these sororities and fraternities and other citizens have occurred, in part, because there has never been a shared community consensus on a plan to guide the University, fraternities and sororities, neighbors and the City on how and where to meet the need for Greek housing. The solution may be, at least in part, to identify appropriate locations for additional Greek housing on or near the Cal Poly campus. For several years, various committees have devoted themselves to 121

122 creating a "Greek Row" -- an area large enough to house a number of sororities and fraternities in one place. The concept has wide support in the community, but the possible locations all have drawbacks. A Community Housing Task Force that included students, members of Cal Poly administration, the Mayor and other citizens and City staffers identified several alternative locations for a Greek Row. Among those were Cal Poly land, the Hathway Street neighborhood and conversion of existing student complexes such as Mustang Village. The City intends to encourage "Greek housing" on the Cal Poly University campus, and until that can be accomplished, in R-3 and R-4 zones. Poly Canyon Village, a new on-campus, mixed-use residential complex may provide new opportunities to establish Greek housing. i) "Shared" households San Luis Obispo encourages a variety of housing types to meet varied lifestyles and needs. Many people are looking for alternative ways to limit the amount of income they spend on housing. U.S. Census figures for 2000 show that more unrelated adults are sharing houses than ever before. In San Luis Obispo, the percentage of non-family households (households with one or more non-relatives) is 45 percent, up 14 percent from In addition to saving money, sharing a house also provides the benefits of companionship and security. There appears to be substantial community interest in shared-housing opportunities such as cooperatives or cohousing. Co-housing allows residents to live in their own private spaces and share centralized dining, meeting and recreation facilities and services. Co-housing started in Denmark in the 1960s and has been gaining popularity in this country. Some of the obstacles to providing cohousing in the City are the availability of sites, public acceptance of and the possible need for exceptions to current standards to develop such a project. j) Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) A single room occupancy dwelling (more commonly called an SRO ) houses one or two people in an individual room (sometimes one room plus separate bathroom or half bathroom) in a multiunit building often a former hotel or boarding house. SRO tenants may share bathrooms and/or kitchens, while some SRO tenants have individual kitchenettes, bathrooms, or half-baths. SROs are typical rental dwellings with floor areas of 200 to 350 square feet. They provide a viable housing option for lower income persons, including extremely low income, very low and low income, and others who do not desire or require large dwellings or private domestic appliances. Their small size and limited amenities generally makes SROs an affordable housing option, especially in downtown areas with high land values. They also can serve as transitional housing to provide an entry point into the housing market for formerly homeless people San Luis Obispo allows single-room occupancy dwellings wherever residential apartments are allowed by right in the R-2, R-3, R-4, O, C-N, C-C, C-D, C-R and C-T; and with discretionary approval in the C-S, and M zones. The City has two SRO buildings downtown: the historic Anderson Hotel (discussed under Chapter 4.40) and the Wineman Hotel. The Anderson Hotel is operated by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo and has 70 units serving verylow and low income persons, many of whom are elderly or disabled. The Wineman Hotel is 122

123 privately owned and managed, and has 48 units serving moderate, low- and very-low income persons under an affordability agreement with the City. The Housing Element includes several programs to encourage the preservation and development of SROs, including: 3.4 Encourage the construction, preservation, rehabilitation or expansion of residential hotels, group homes, integrated community apartments, and single-room occupancy dwellings Preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) and the Downtown Planning Area by continuing the "no net housing loss" program so that as of the baseline date of March 30, 2004, the number of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings added. 8.1 Encourage housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or cohousing accommodations, utilizing universal design. 3. Conclusions Three general categories of housing needs are discussed in this section: existing needs, growth needs and special needs. These are summarized in Table B

124 Table B-11 Summary of Housing Needs, City of San Luis Obispo Housing Needs (RHNA) Special Needs Groups Extremely Low 177 (185) income units Very Low income 21 (185) Elderly 3,612 units households Low income units 227 (259) Disabled persons 5,814 Moderate income 253 (295) Large households 1,052 units Above Moderate 0 (665) Female-headed 1,309 income units households TOTAL (1,589) Farm worker households Overpaying Households Overcrowding Renters 6,600 Renters 814 Owners 1,570 Owners 100 TOTAL 8,170 TOTAL 914 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, Remaining new housing construction need after credit for dwellings approved, permitted, under construction or built between January 1, 2007 and December 31, The main findings of the needs analysis are: Overpayment. In 2000, 44 percent of all City households overpaid for housing. Among low-income households (< $35,000/year), 52 percent of owner households overpaid and 78 percent of renters overpaid for housing. Overcrowding. Overcrowding appears to have declined in San Luis Obispo since About eight percent of rental units are overcrowded, and just over one percent of owneroccupied units are overcrowded. Large Families. In 2000, about five percent of City households, or 897 households, were large families with five or more members, at least two of which were related. Large dwellings, with six or more rooms, make up about one-third of the City s housing stock, or 6,000 units. The majority of these units are owner-occupied. Female-headed Households. Female-headed households comprise seven percent of the City s 18,656 households, or about 1,300 households. Of these, about one-half include 124

125 children under 18 years of age. Regional Housing Needs. San Luis Obispo s assigned regional housing need for the planning period January 2010 December 2014 is 1,589, broken down by household income group as follows: Extremely Low 185; Very Low units; Low units; Moderate units; and Above Moderate units. Remaining new housing construction need after credit for dwellings approved, under construction or built between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009 are: Extremely Low 177; Very Low 21; Low 227; Moderate 253 and Above Moderate 0, for a total remaining need of 678 dwelling units. 125

126 Appendix C Housing Constraints and Resources 1. Governmental Constraints Governmental constraints are the policies, standards, requirements, actions or fees imposed by local, State or Federal governments to guide land use and development. Their purpose is to ensure communities are well planned, and to protect the health, safety and well being of all residents. Within the City of San Luis Obispo, local building and zoning regulations are the primary regulatory tools guiding development. Some regulations, such as the Uniform Building Code and the California Environmental Quality Act, are State-mandated policies and standards implemented at the local level. Although State and Federal agencies do play a role in the imposition of government constraints, these agencies are generally beyond the influence of local government and are not analyzed in this document. As further described below, land use, development, economic stability and construction standards can affect the type, location, number and cost of new dwellings. In general, these standards are intended to protect public health, welfare and safety and are necessary to carry out state, federal or local law. In achieving these public purposes, government rules may serve to constrain the construction rate, amount or design of new housing. State law requires that governmental constraints on housing be addressed in the Housing Element, with the goal of removing or modifying such constraints where possible to encourage suitable housing. Program 2.7 calls for the City to evaluate code requirements and development standards to remove unnecessary constraints to housing while still protecting public health, welfare and safety. Such evaluation is on-going, as part of the preparation, review, or amendment of local development regulations, or as needed to address specific issues raised by decision makers or the public. a) Land Use Controls General Plan By State law, all California cities must have a general plan to guide land use, transportation, housing and other important facets of the community. The general plan is the foundation of all local land use controls, and embodies the community s vision for an environmentally sound, lifesustaining future. Seven mandated elements, or chapters, make up the general plan, plus optional elements adopted by the jurisdiction to address special community concerns. Among these elements, the land use element identifies the location, nature, distribution and character of land uses in the City. To implement the General Plan, the City uses a number of planning tools including Zoning Regulations, Specific Plans, Subdivision Regulations, Community Design Guidelines, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Parking and Driveway Standards. Property owners, 126

127 developers, architects and others use these standards in designing new housing developments. The standards help explain the City s requirements and expectations, and are used by the City when reviewing development proposals. Policies outlined in the Land Use Element stipulate the amount, type and location of housing. They also help establish the prevailing housing patterns and population density. Residential zones account for over 37 percent of total zoned land area within City limits. The San Luis Obispo General Plan provides for four residential zones, plus nine zones where housing is allowed with special approval. Table C-1 shows the land use zones that allow housing, their existing acreage and the ranges of density allowed. Table C-1 Land Use Categories Allowing Residential Uses City of San Luis Obispo, 2009 Zone Description Acres in 2009 Max. Allowed Density (Density Units/Net Acre) 1 R-1 Low-density Residential 1,644 7 R-2 Medium-density Residential R-3 Medium-high-density Residential R-4 High-density Residential C/OS Conservation/Open Space 2,420 One dwelling per five acres AG Agricultural 0 One dwelling per 20 acres 2 C-C Community Commercial C-D Downtown Commercial C-R General Commercial C-N Neighborhood Commercial

128 C-T Tourist Commercial C-S Commercial Service M Manufacturing O Office Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, Density Unit is equivalent to a two-bedroom dwelling. Other sized dwellings: studio dwelling, 0.5 DU; onebedroom dwelling, 0.66 DU; three-bedroom, 1.5 DU; four or more bedrooms, 2.0 DUs. Net acre refers to site area minus dedicated right-of-way. 2 Except that each legal lot of record may have one dwelling. 3 In combination with Mixed-Use (MU) overlay zone, up to 24 DU/acre allowed. 12 DU/acre considered likely average density achieved. General Plan policies encourage infill development to avoid sprawl, and also designate major residential expansion areas outside city limits and within the Urban Reserve, the City s anticipated urban limits at build out. The policies seek to balance residential development with open space preservation and availability of urban services. According to the General Plan Land Use Element, a total of 24,300 dwellings are anticipated within the City by the year 2022, accommodating approximately 57,200 persons. As of January 2009, the State Department of Finance reported 20,318 dwellings in San Luis Obispo, housing a total of 44,750 persons. b) Zoning Regulations and Development Standards Zoning Regulations implement the City's General Plan land use policies. They establish specific development standards, allowable land uses, performance standards and the permit process necessary for the City s orderly development. Zoning regulations control development by regulating allowed uses, and by development standards that set density, building setbacks, building height, lot area and parking requirements. The regulations apply equally to mobile homes, manufactured and site-built housing. Table C-2 summarizes residential zoning development standards for San Luis Obispo. The standards are comparable to other communities requirements and ensure a quality living environment for all households, regardless of tenure or income group. 128

129 Zone Minim um Lot Area (sq. ft.) Table C-2 Summary of Residential Development Standards, 2009 City of San Luis Obispo Max. Lot Covera ge Max. Bldg. Height (feet) Min. Street Yard (feet) Min. Other Yard (feet) R-1 6,000 40% R-2 5,000 50% Car Parking Required (number of spaces) 2 per dwelling; 1 of which must be covered 1.5 for 1 st bdrm., +1/2 for each addl. bdrm./unit; plus 1 per every 5 units Use Permit Required? R-3 5,000 60% Same as R-2 No R-4 6,000 60% Same as R-2 No C/OS 5 acres 3-5% Same as R-1 No AG 5 acres 3-5% Same as R-2 No O 6,000 60% Same as R-2 No 2 C-N 6,000 75% Same as R-2 Yes C-R 9, % 45 As provided in zone of adjacent lot As provided in zone of adjacent lot Same as R-2 No No Yes 129

130 Zone Minim um Lot Area (sq. ft.) Max. Lot Covera ge Max. Bldg. Height (feet) C-C 5 6,000 75% 35 C-D 3 3, % 50 4 Min. Street Yard (feet) As provided in zone of adjacent lot As provided in zone of adjacent lot C-T 3 9,000 75% C-S 5 9,000 75% M 5 9,000 75% Min. Other Yard (feet) As provided in zone of adjacent lot As provided in zone of adjacent lot As provided in zone of adjacent lot As provided in zone of adjacent lot As provided in zone of adjacent lot Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, Up to 35 feet with Administrative Use Permit 2 Administrative Use Permit required for multi-family dwellings. Car Parking Required (number of spaces) ½ that required in other zones ½ that required in other zones Same as R-2 Same as R-2 Same as R-2 3 Mixed-use projects only. 4 Additional building height up to 75 feet may be approved if specific performance standards are met (see Ch of Municipal Code) 5 Mixed-use and Work/live projects only. Exceptions to Development Standards Use Permit Required? Several exceptions or variance procedures are possible in the Planned Development and Specific Plan zones. They allow flexibility in site planning and building design to encourage the No No Yes Yes Yes

131 development of housing for special needs groups, and to provide density bonuses for projects which include affordable housing which meets or exceeds City standards. City planning and building policies, application review and permitting procedures provide for reasonable accommodation for disabled persons several ways: 1) by allowing the Community Development Director and Chief Building Official to apply flexible building standards to meet the needs of handicapped persons and their caregivers, 2) by promoting universal design in new development, and 3) by ensuring that Community Design Guidelines address the need to provide reasonable accommodation in new development and remodels. Table C-3 lists some of the City s Flexible Development Standards to encourage housing. Table C-3 Selected Flexible Residential Development Standards, 2009 City of San Luis Obispo Development Feature Flexible Standard Potential Uses Residential Density Bonuses Non-Conforming Lots Non-Conforming Structures Density Transfer Street or Other Yard Setbacks Tandem Parking Shared and Mixed Use Parking Parking for Elderly and Low-Income Housing Parking and Driveway Requirements 25% density bonus automatically allowed if 20% of project units affordable or for elderly. Other standard and negotiable density bonuses possible Lots that were legally created but do not meet current size or dimension standards may be individually developed Dwellings that are non-conforming in terms of density, yards, coverage or parking may be rebuilt as previously existing if involuntarily destroyed Residential density may be transferred within areas covered by a planned development rezoning (PD) Street yards may be reduced to 10 for buildings, and Other Yards reduced to 0 with AUP approval One unenclosed tandem parking space may be located in required Street Yards for designated single dwellings A 10% parking reduction is possible where 2 or more uses share a parking lot. If mixed-use, and additional 20% parking reduction is possible ½ space/unit required for elderly housing; 1 car space plus 1 bicycle space/unit for very-low/low income Parking and driveway standards (width, design, materials) variable with Director approval Extremely low, very-low, low- and moderate income housing, elderly housing. Residential lots less than 5,000 square feet. Legal, non-conforming single- and multifamily dwellings that are legal, nonconforming and are involuntarily damaged or destroyed Hillside or creekside lots where development capacity transferred to cluster development Additions/remodels of legal, nonconforming dwellings; zero-lot line developments Dwellings with garage conversions and for Second Residential units; and for additional parking for single dwellings Mixed use developments where compatible residential and commercial uses share parking In combination with density bonus, allows efficient utilization of site for special needs housing Allows more creative design of housing; especially useful on small sites or for older neighborhoods 131

132 Building Height Downtown Building Height Components of solar energy systems, chimneys, mech. Equipment, vents, steeples, and antenna may extend up to 10 ft. beyond allowed building height Additional building height (to 75 ft.) where 50 ft. normally allowed if affordable housing is included Housing with solar energy systems, roofmounted mechanical equipment, or telecommunications facilities. SROs, extremely low, very low, low and moderated income housing in denser, urban setting Energy Conservation Compliance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code on the use of energy efficient appliances and insulation has reduced energy demands resulting from new residential development. The City s Conservation and Open Space Element, Subdivision and Zoning Regulations promote energy-conserving design and placement of buildings. Programs 9.9 and 9.10 call for incentives to promote green housing construction and reuse and recycling of materials. This will be accomplished, in part, through architectural review and through adoption of an energy conservation ordinance to implement the City s Climate Action Plan, being prepared in Mixed Residential and Commercial Uses Mixing residential and commercial uses is encouraged to promote housing development close to jobs and employment centers, to exploit affordable infill housing opportunities and to promote a compact, pedestrian- and transit-friendly urban structure. Mixed-use projects are allowed by right in all commercial zones except for Service-Commercial and Manufacturing zones, which require Planning Commission approval. Rezoning is not required. Mixed Use development refers to the vertical or horizontal mixing of commercial and residential uses on the same parcel. There is no minimum commercial floor area or number of dwellings established. Typical mixed-use development includes one to two residential floors above commercial uses on the ground level, and mixed use development is allowed on parcels as small as 3,000 square feet in the Downtown Core. Figure C-1 identifies mixed-use projects constructed in San Luis Obispo since General Plan adoption. Program 6.10 calls for additional incentives to encourage mixeduse developments in the Downtown Core, including flexible density, use, height or parking incentives. Parking Requirements San Luis Obispo s car parking requirements are shown in Table C-2. The type and number of car parking spaces varies by zone. Flexible parking requirements and design standards allow developers to reduce parking by up to 30 percent for mixed-use developments. Flexible standards also allow variety in parking locations, layouts and design in order to promote more efficient and attractive use of residential sites. Bicycle and motorcycle parking is also required for multi-family housing at the rate of one motorcycle plus one bicycle space per 20 car spaces. Parking requirements indirectly constrain housing, especially in the Downtown Core where parking is very limited. Because the Zoning Regulations require that parking be provided on the 132

133 same site as the use, this reduces the amount of land available for residential development. While excessive parking requirements can unduly constrain housing, insufficient parking can adversely affect residents safety, quality of life and neighborhood compatibility. The City s standards seek to establish a balance by allowing flexible requirements that can be tailored to specific site conditions where necessary. Program 6.9 calls for amendments to City parking regulations to allow flexible parking regulations for housing, especially in the Downtown Core (C-D zone) which allows a base residential density of 36 density units per acre (equivalent to 36 two-bedroom units per acre). Allowing reduced or no parking requirements for development of housing for people who either do not own or need on-site parking will be considered. Much of the Downtown Core was developed in the late 19 th and early 20 th century when automobile parking was not required. Many parcels in the C-D and C-R zones lack onsite parking. The Downtown Core is the most intensively developed area of the City, and development standards encourage 100 percent site utilization and a mix of commercial, residential, cultural and governmental uses. In the C-D zone, parking is half of what is required for residential use in other zones, and may be met by locating parking off site, within 500 feet of the use, or by paying a fee in lieu of providing parking. The long-term strategy has been to build public parking facilities on the edges of Downtown to encourage infill and intensification, use of public transit and a more pedestrian friendly Downtown Core. Although the C-D zone allow the highest base residential density housing in the City, housing is difficult to build, in part, because of the difficulty in providing parking. Downtown hotels (Anderson Hotel, Granada Hotel, Wineman Hotel, Blackstone Hotel) were developed with little or no parking, while providing housing for tourists or residents without cars Census figures show that about seven percent of San Luis Obispo householders did not own a car. For those without cars, or those who use cars infrequently, Downtown provides an alternative housing choice near schools, shopping, nightlife, jobs and services. For those who do need cars, the possibility exists for shared use of private or public downtown parking facilities. For example, some parking may be available for rent in Downtown public parking facilities during evenings, when times of peak parking demand do not coincide. Additional flexibility to allow very low or no parking requirements for residents without cars and with adequate guarantees tied to occupancy, could help expand housing opportunities in this important and desirable location. Subdivision and Grading Regulations Subdivision regulations determine how land is subdivided and set requirements for facilities such as public streets and utility lines that serve the new subdivisions. Specific requirements for materials and construction are adopted as policy by the City, according to recommendations by the City Engineer. Special limits and requirements are often set by the City Council when approving individual subdivisions. The minimum lot size of most residential zones is 5,000 square feet, with minimum widths of 50 or 60 feet; however, exceptions to lot size and dimensions are possible with City Council approval. As a special type of attached, ownership housing, the Condominium Regulations set minimum standards for open-space, recreation, laundry facilities, solar heating and storage that are higher than those applied to rental housing. The City's Grading Regulations set limits and procedures for earth moving, generally to prevent mass re-contouring and erosion and to assure stable building sites. 133

134 Lot Size. Lot sizes and established neighborhood patterns influence the types of housing within a community. Historically, most residential lots in San Luis Obispo ranged in size from 5,000 to 7,500 square feet, with about 6,000 square feet being common in newer subdivisions. The subdivision of land into parcels of 6,000-10,000 square feet, regardless of allowed density, has encouraged the development of low-density, detached housing. Reducing the minimum lot size is often recommended as a means of increasing housing density and thereby reducing land cost per unit of housing. It does not necessarily follow, however, that small lots will result in more affordable housing. There are many coastal resort communities in California with high-priced cottages on small lots. In high-density residential areas, small lots may encourage the construction of detached, rather than multi-family housing. Large parcels in medium-high and high-density residential zones offer the best opportunities to encourage affordable housing. Larger parcels in San Luis Obispo, even in low-density residential zones, are suitable for apartments and condominiums. San Luis Obispo allows relatively small lots of 6,000 square feet in the R-1 zone, and 5,000 square feet in all other residential zones. San Luis Obispo has the second highest residential density of the County's cities (after Grover Beach) with about 4,500 persons per square mile. It remains, however, one of the most expensive housing markets in the County. Clearly, market demand strongly influences housing costs. And while the City's lot pattern has been established in most areas, lot patterns in expansion areas encourage a mix of residential densities and lot sizes. For example, the Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan contains a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet compared with the typical low density residential lot size of 6,000 square feet. Land is a major component of housing costs in San Luis Obispo. In many of the City s older neighborhoods, lot sizes of less than 6,000 square feet are common. While many housing consumers prefer single, detached houses on 6,000-square-foot or larger lots, there also appears to be a market for smaller, detached homes on relatively small (e.g. 4,000 to 4,500 square feet) lots. Reducing lot areas with a resultant reduction in house size is one strategy to reduce housing costs for those desiring starter housing, such as working couples and small families just entering the housing market. Program 6.29 implements this strategy by encouraging new subdivision standards that promote small lot subdivisions, bungalow court developments and other innovative development concepts. In 2009, such development requires approval of a variance or a planned development (PD) rezoning. 134

135 c) Specific Plans As the name implies, specific plans guide the development of a defined area to implement the general plan and guide development in expansion areas. Such plans can vary widely in terms of geographic area covered, degree of specificity, and land uses addressed. As shown in Table C-4, Table C-4 Estimated Housing Capacity in Expansion Areas, 2009 Expansion Area Dwelling Unit Capacity Orcutt (annexation pending) 979 Margarita (already annexed) 870 Edna-Islay West 20 Minor Annexation Areas 1 1,191 TOTAL 3,060 1 (Foothill Saddle, Luneta, CDF, Highland, Miossi, Alrita, Maino, Cal Poly, and other residential areas). campus. the City has four expansion areas that, when annexed and fully developed, could potentially add 3,060 dwellings. The Minor Annexation areas are located outside City limits but inside the Urban Reserve Line; the other expansion areas are located within City Limits. City policies require the preparation of specific plans for each of the major expansion areas, with provisions for phased housing development. Each area's phasing will be determined, in part, by the affordability of the dwellings, and by other public benefits such as open space. The specific plan areas committed to producing the largest number of dwellings affordable to very low- or lowincome residents are the Margarita and Orcutt Area Specific Plan areas. Descriptions of the planned zoning and permitted uses in these areas, including land available and suitable for higher density, multi-family rental and ownership housing, are included in Appendix N, Residential Capacity Inventory. 135

136 Figure C-1 New Housing Opportunities Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2009 Margarita Specific Plan Area. The Margarita Specific Plan Area (MASP), slated for about 870 new dwellings, will be the next major expansion area to be developed. The Margarita Area contains about 418 acres in the south-central part of the City s urban area. The City has counted on the Margarita Area to provide a large share of the City s future housing needs and to balance projected job growth. The Specific Plan and EIR are adopted and available for public review on the City s website. Based on the 2008 Phasing Plan for Major Residential Areas, Table C-5, up to 790 dwellings could be built during this housing element s planning period. Since the MASP has been adopted and the planning area annexed, infrastructure installation and housing construction can proceed once ministerial construction permits have been issued. As shown in Table C-5, three subdivisions have been approved totaling 394 dwellings and can proceed within the planning period. Of these, at least 52 dwellings will be affordable to lower and moderate income households for at least 55 years, as a condition of subdivision approval. Street and utility installation and housing construction are 136

137 Approved Vesting Tract Map Name and Number Cowan/French Tract 2342 Sierra Gardens/ DeBlauw Tract 2353 Table C-5 Margarita Specific Plan Area Approved Tract Maps, 2009 Total Dwellings Number of Single Family Dwellings 137 Number of Multi- Family Dwellings Number of Affordable Dwellings, by Income Group 4-Moderate 2-Low Very Low King Tract Totals Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, Very-Low 4-Moderate 2-Low 46-Very low Total: 52 units expected to begin in , with affordable and market rate units under construction from 2012 through Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) covers about 231 acres in the southeastern part of the urban area. Almost half of the area will be open space or parks. The rest will accommodate up to 979 dwellings of various types, of which at least 15 percent, or 147 dwellings, will be deed restricted to ensure affordability for moderate and lower income households. Affordability will be required on a project-by-project basis, as a condition of development approval and implemented by development agreements between the property owners and the City. The General Plan Land Use Element requires that specific plans for major residential expansion areas include sites suitable for affordable and low-income rental and owner-occupied housing. Such sites must be integrated within neighborhoods of market rate housing and comparable in overall quality and design. The OASP designates sufficient areas at appropriate densities to accommodate a range of dwelling types, including detached and attached single-family dwellings, sweat-equity housing, duplexes, apartments and condominiums, manufactured housing parks, group housing, graduated care facilities, and creative housing cooperatives. To meet this requirement, the City will solicit and support new housing developments that include one or more of the following features: 1. Subdivisions designed to integrate various housing types, densities, and costs.

138 Affordable Starter housing consisting of small (approximately 1,150-1,450 square feet) homes on lots of 5,000 square feet or less. Duplexes and garden homes which provide the desirability and appearance of single-family housing while allowing higher density and lower housing costs. Self-help housing development of approximately small, single-story detached homes. Medium Density and Medium-High Density apartments, condominiums or manufactured housing. Special needs housing designed for seniors, handicapped persons, farm workers, large families, graduated care facilities, or others with special physical needs and low incomes in high density and mixed-use zones. Figure C-2 Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan Mixed Use Housing Opportunities Developers may choose to build one or more housing types, and to work with housing nonprofits such as Peoples Self-Help Housing Corporation, the San Luis Obispo Housing Authority, Habitat for Humanity, or other agencies or individuals to cooperatively plan, develop, and market affordable housing within their developments. OASP policies require that 10 percent moderate income and 5 percent low-income dwelling units are built with each development. In addition, the Plan provides for right of first refusal to be extended to the City or the City s Housing Authority for the purchase of a site located in the southwest portion of the Orcutt Area. The site is proposed for development with medium-high or high density residential uses and is 138

139 anticipated to accommodate the five percent low income housing required of the largest land owner. Zone Table C-6 Orcutt Specific Plan Area - Affordable Housing Capacity by Zone Maximum Allowed Density Units/Acre 1 Zoned Area (Acres) Percent of Total Land Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department In the R-1 and C/OS zones, all dwellings count as one (1) density unit, allowing up to seven dwellings per acre. In all other zones allowing residential uses, density is adjusted for unit size and expressed as density units (DU). Studio units assigned a density unit value of 0.5 DU, 1 bedroom = 0.66 DU, 2 bedroom = 1 DU, bedroom =1.5 DU, and 4 or more bedrooms equal 2.0 DU. 2 By ordinance, 10% of new housing must be affordable to moderate income and 5% must be affordable to Low Income. Assumes ½ of Low Income requirement will be dedicated to San Luis Obispo Housing Authority as Very- Low or Extremely Low Income housing using City Affordable Housing Funds and other grants and incentives. Remaining landowners in the OASP will be required to construct affordable housing or pay-in lieu housing fees for their share of the low-income housing requirement. Housing Element Policy 2.5 requires that if the in-lieu fee option is chosen, the property owner must pay a 15% percent in-lieu fee to the City to be deposited in the Affordable Housing Fund. Based on the 2008 Phasing Plan for Major Residential Areas, Table C-7, 730 dwellings were anticipated to be built during this housing element s planning period. However, due primarily to statewide economic factors, anticipated housing construction will not be achieved within this timeframe. Specific plan adoption is to be completed by December 2010, with construction 139 Estimated Number of Dwellings Affordable Dwellings Anticipated 2 R Moderate+ 10-Low 3-Very Low R Moderate+ 10-Low+ 4-Very Low R Moderate+ 10-Low+ 7-Very Low R Moderate+ 5-Extremely Low C-C Moderate+ 2-Low Totals , Moderate 32-Low 14-Very Low 5-Extr. Low 154 Dwellings

140 likely to begin in Staff anticipates completion of up to 370 dwellings in the first construction phase, with certificates of occupancy issued for at least one-third of these units by d) Residential Growth Management Regulations The General Plan says that the City s housing supply shall grow no faster than one percent per year, averaged over a 36-month period. As shown in Table A-21, annual increases in the number of dwellings have averaged 0.36 percent over the past three years. Units that are deedrestricted as affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households are not factored into the Growth Management Schedule because they are exempt from the Growth Management Ordinance. Dwellings built in the downtown area are also exempt. Quantified objectives anticipate the construction of 1,589 in-city dwellings during the planning period. Of these, 58 percent, or 924 dwellings, will be affordable to extremely low, very-low, low, and moderate income households, consistent with the percentages of housing affordability in the City s RHNA number. Figure C-3 General Plan Anticipated Housing and Population Growth City of San Luis Obispo 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Anticipated number of dwellings Actual number of dwellings Anticipated number of people Actual number of people Source: City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element, California Department of Finance, 2008 The Residential Growth Management Regulations will not prevent the City from achieving its quantified objectives because they do not set a numeric cap on all housing. For example, new housing that is affordable to extremely low, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, and new housing in the Downtown Core (C-D) are exempt from the Regulations. 140

141 Figure C-3 shows the housing and population growth anticipated in the General Plan. General Plan policies promote a balance of land uses to create a healthy, sustainable and resilient economic basis, protect the natural environment and promote housing that can accommodate all income groups. The General Plan states that population growth should not increase more than one percent per year, averaged over a 36-month period, until it reaches a build out population of 57,200 persons in Residential Phasing Plan To accomplish this objective, the City amended its Residential Growth Management Regulations in The new regulations emphasized development phasing in major annexation areas as the means to manage long-term residential growth. The regulations include a phasing plan showing the number of new dwellings to be built in residential expansion areas during three-year intervals as shown in Table C-7. New dwellings affordable to residents with extremely low, very-low, low- or moderate incomes are not counted toward the one percent average growth rate. The regulations are administered through the annual General Plan review process. The City annually reviews the status of residential building in relation to the adopted phasing schedule. Revisions are then considered which would allow allocations to be shifted among areas, or the phasing intervals modified to better achieve housing goals. The phasing plan is updated periodically to reflect construction trends. As of January 2010, residential construction in the Margarita and Orcutt areas has not yet begun. Residential growth management policies are implemented by the Residential Growth Management Regulations, SLOMC The regulations provide for phased housing construction in large annexation areas, such as the Margarita Area and the Orcutt Area. The current phasing schedule reflects the City s policy to complete one neighborhood before beginning another, with some overlap permitted. An update to the phasing schedule will be necessary during the current schedule s phasing. The purpose of the update will be to redistribute the 80 units allocated to the Margarita Area that were not built during the phase, to address the potential for the overlap in housing development between the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area to be greater than previously anticipated, and to carry forward unbuilt dwellings to future phases. 141

142 Table C-7 Major Expansion Areas Phasing Plan, 2008 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2008 Notes: (a) Dwellings affordable to residents with very low, low, or moderate incomes, as defined in the Housing Element, are exempt. (b) This is a simple count of dwellings and is not meant to reflect the Zoning Regulation's method for calculating fractional dwellings. (c) Includes the incorporated area in 1994 and certain annexations during (Stoneridge; Prefumo Homes; and the El Capitan, Goldenrod and Fuller Road parts of the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, which has its own growth management provisions). (d) A calculated result: dwellings permitted (new construction minus demolitions), divided by three, divided by the total number of dwellings projected to be in the city at the middle of the interval, times 100; assumes that the maximum amounts are achieved in previous intervals. (e) A calculated result: the compound growth rate that over 24 years would result in the total net increase. The Airport Land Use Plan The San Luis Obispo County Airport has a major influence on the community, particularly the southern part of San Luis Obispo s urban area where most of the City s residential growth is planned. Under State law, a countywide, independent Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) adopts a plan identifying land uses that are compatible with present and future airport noise and safety conditions. The area subject to this Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) extends beyond the City s designated airport specific plan area, and includes land under City and County jurisdictions. Proposed specific plans and amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map or Regulations are referred to the ALUC for a compatibility determination. The ALUC uses its plan as a basis for those determinations. A four-fifths vote of the City Council and certain findings are required for the City to override a finding of incompatibility. The City s General Plan calls for consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. In June 2002, the ALUC adopted major amendments to its 1970s-vintage plan. The amendments significantly reduced the number of residential units that could be built in the areas subject to the plan. In most areas, the plan limits overall residential density to six dwellings per acre, well below densities targeted by City plans. For example, the number of units planned for the Margarita Area had to be reduced from 1,100 dwellings to 870 dwellings. The City has since amended the Airport, Margarita and Orcutt Expansion Area Specific Plans to reflect the 142

143 amended ALUP, and also amended the Zoning Regulations (as part of the proposed commercial zoning update). Density Bonus The Affordable Housing Incentives allow a residential density bonus of at least 25 percent for developers who build five or more dwellings with at least 20 percent of those units sold or rented at prices affordable to low- or moderate income people, or at least 10 percent of the units for those in the very-low income category. Housing developments with at least 50 percent of the units targeted for persons 62 years or older also qualify for a density bonus. Additional incentives, including density bonuses greater than 25 percent, are available on a negotiable basis in return for adding a higher percentage of affordable units. As provided in Program 6.24, the City will update its density bonus program for consistency with State law. Secondary Dwelling Units Consistent with AB 1866 (Section of State Housing Element law), the City s Zoning Regulations allow the creation of second-units with ministerial approvals in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and O zones when the primary use on the site is a single-family dwelling, subject to the Community Development Director s determination that the project meets general requirements and performance standards. Under the law, cities may establish property development standards for SDUs, including, but not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, and architectural design. San Luis Obispo s secondary dwelling units (SDU) ordinance eliminated previous use permit requirement and discretionary review for SDUs, and allows attached or detached SDUs on any legal, conforming and residentially zoned lot. Under the new provisions, SDUs require only one parking space, and are reviewed by the City's planning staff to ensure architectural compatibility. SDUs must conform to applicable zoning regulations such as height, yards, building coverage, and are limited to a maximum floor area of 450 square feet. Performance standards to ensure neighborhood compatibility also were included in the amended SDU regulations. SDUs are treated as an additional unit but are not taken into consideration when calculating total allowed density on a site. SDUs are charged development impact fees as a multi-family dwelling. Rental costs for SDUs are not listed separately in local classified ads and rental listings, however SDUs are likely to rent at prices similar to or slightly higher than studio apartments in multifamily developments. State law (Section of State housing element law) allows local governments to identify realistic capacity for second-units in addressing a locality s share of the regional housing need. The identification of realistic capacity should be based on the development trends of secondunits in the previous housing element planning period and other relevant factors. The City has not identified SDUs as a housing component in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). SDU construction rates in San Luis Obispo have been low (averaging about one to two units per year between 2000 and 2008, possibly due in part to developer and tenant preferences for larger apartments given the City s utility fee rate structure which treats SDUs 143

144 similar to houses or larger apartments in terms of utility impacts. To more fully utilize this form of infill housing, a new housing element program is included in the Housing Element: 6.28 (New) Consider changes to the Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU)) Ordinance, including possible incentives such as SDU design templates, flexible development standards, fee reductions or deferrals, or other measures to encourage the construction of SDUs where allowed by zoning. Manufactured and Modular Housing, Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks Manufactured, modular and mobile homes offer economical alternatives to conventional, stickbuilt housing. Manufactured homes are those built entirely in a factory under Federal building codes administered by the U.S. Department Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Manufactured homes are then transported to the site as single- or multi-section homes and installed on site. On-site additions, such as garages, decks and porches, add to the attractiveness of the homes and must be built to local building codes. Modular housing describes factory- built homes manufactured specifically to the State, local or regional construction code requirements wherever the home will be located. As with manufactured housing, the modular homes are transported to their sites and installed. Mobile home is the term used for factory-built housing produced before June 15, 1976, when the HUD construction codes took effect. Other types of manufactured housing include panelized and pre-cut homes, in which factory-built homes are shipped to the site in panels or as pre-cut kits for site assembly. Industry advances in quality and design, as well as affordability, dramatically increased the popularity of these housing types in the late 1990s. In 2000, according to the Manufactured Housing Institute, 22 million Americans (about eight percent of the U.S. population) lived fulltime in 10 million manufactured homes. In 2001 the industry shipped over 193,000 homes from 275 manufacturing facilities nationwide. A manufactured home can cost anywhere from one-third to one-half the cost of a conventional house. Architecturally, manufactured homes include details and features that make the homes compatible with most residential neighborhoods and communities. In 2008 California Department of Finance figures show that San Luis Obispo had 1,502 mobile homes, or about 7.5 percent of the City s housing stock. Mobile homes, placed on permanent foundations and located outside mobile home parks, and manufactured (modular) housing are treated the same as conventional site-built housing under the City's zoning, subdivision and architectural review requirements. Therefore, all residentially zoned land is available for some type of manufactured housing. Mobile-home parks are allowed with use-permit approval in all residential zones. The City has few areas suitable for new, large mobile-home parks or for the expansion of existing parks. However, expansion areas could accommodate mobile home parks and the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) encourages expansion of an adjacent mobile home park into the higher density area of the OASP. To help conserve mobile home parks and provide constructive notice to park owners of requirements to convert such parks to other uses, a proposed Housing Element program will 144

145 establish poses establishing a new mobile home or MH overlay zone: 8.24 Consider addition of an overlay zone to existing mobile home and trailer park sites to provide constructive notice that additional requirements, such as rent stabilization and a mobile home park conversion ordinance apply. In combination with any other zone, the MH overlay zone would identify State and local regulations regarding rent control, maintenance, density, conversion to other uses and public/tenant notice requirements. e) Architectural Review Architectural review is required for all residential developments, except individual built, singlefamily dwellings. The exception for single-family dwellings does not apply: (1) when architectural review is required as a condition of a subdivision, use permit or other discretionary entitlement; (2) when a developer proposes to construct three or more homes in the same area; (3) when the City s Community Development Director determines the site is sensitive as set forth in the procedures document ( sensitive sites shall include, but not be limited to, open space zoning areas designated by resolution of the planning commission, architectural review commission or council); (4) where the scale or character of a proposed dwelling contrasts significantly with adjacent or neighboring structures; and (5) where any required parking spaces that are covered are converted to another use and replacement parking is proposed. San Luis Obispo adopted Community Design Guidelines that describe the community s expectations and preferences for the quality and character of new developments. The Guidelines encourage design variety and innovation, and are intended to preserve San Luis Obispo s distinctive character and sense of history. Depending upon the type and scale of the project, architectural review can add, on the average, from two to four months of review time, including study, public hearings and revisions. The additional holding time, from a development standpoint, adds to development costs (interest costs, design/architectural fees, construction delays) that are then passed through to housing buyers. For large residential projects, this cost impact on an individual dwelling is lessened; however, on small projects, the cost can be a significant factor in the overall purchase price of a home. Most of the City s neighborhoods are an eclectic mix of architectural styles and character. In many cases, small residential infill projects of four units or less can be integrated into neighborhoods on lots already zoned for residential use, without posing significant architectural design or compatibility issues. The housing would need to comply with all zoning standards, including setbacks, building height and lot coverage. By exempting more small residential projects from architectural review, the City could help reduce development costs and improve the economic feasibility of constructing small detached or attached dwellings. On historic properties, or where site constraints such as creeks, steep hillsides or lot shape require special consideration, architectural review of the sensitive site may be appropriate. To help reduce development costs, Program 6.20 calls for an amendment to the Municipal Code and Community Design Guidelines to expand the exemption for small residential projects from two or fewer units 145

146 to four or less dwellings (not on a sensitive site). Most of these developments would be eligible for less costly and time-consuming staff level architectural review. f) Building and Zoning Code Enforcement Code enforcement focuses mainly on zoning or building code violations that adversely affect public health or safety, and on preserving neighborhoods. The code enforcement program includes education, mitigation and prosecution issues, and has two components: 1) building and zoning code enforcement, and 2) neighborhood services. In addition to ensuring that new development is designed and constructed in conformance with City standards for quality and safety, the Community Development Department also ensures that property and land uses conform to those standards over time. The Department enforces the City s land use, development, building and sign regulations through its Code Enforcement Program. The Code Enforcement Officer is responsible for the resolution of any violations. Table C-8 summarizes code enforcement complaints received in The program is complaint-driven and handles about 500 cases per year. Upon receipt of a complaint, a building inspector makes a preliminary site visit to verify the existence of a violation, and informs the Code Enforcement Officer about conditions at the site. If a violation exists, a Notice of Violation is issued and the necessary steps are taken to resolve the problem. More complicated cases are set for abatement proceedings or, in some cases, criminal prosecution. Complaints about sign violations and illegal construction have accounted for the majority of City building and zoning code enforcement cases. The illegal conversion of garages, sheds, attics and shops to rental housing has contributed to substandard housing, parking violations, property maintenance complaints and other housing concerns. The City notifies property owners in writing of specific conditions that must be addressed, and provides clear direction on how to correct the violations. City staffers work with property owners to determine whether the illegal construction can be upgraded and remain in place, or if steps are necessary to remove any illegal or unsafe construction. Of these enforcement actions, less than one percent actually resulted in displacing the current occupant. 146

147 Table C-8 Code Enforcement Cases, 2008 City of San Luis Obispo TYPES OF COMPLAINTS Number of Cases Garage Conversion 25 Substandard Housing 15 High-Occupancy Residential Use 14 Other 80 Signs 240 Converted Living Space 2 Home Occupations 9 Fence Height 11 Animals 1 Trailers 2 Noise 16 Fraternities/Sororities 21 Use In Wrong Zone 2 Building Code Violations 49 No Building Permit 69 TOTAL COMPLAINTS RECEIVED 556* Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2009 *Established cases may have multiple complaints. Neighborhood Services. In 1995 the Office of Neighborhood Services (ONS) was established. It is administered through the San Luis Obispo Police Department, and enforces Noise Regulations, residential parking districts and Property Maintenance Standards. These standards preserve the quality, character and condition of neighborhoods, and address the following issues related to residential and neighborhood preservation: screening of storage and recreational vehicles, front yard paving, use and maintenance of roofs, fencing, maintenance of buildings or grounds and graffiti. In 2008 the Police Department handled 95 noise violation and 426 property maintenance violation cases. Through public information, community and educational programs, ONS works to improve communications between students and other neighborhood groups, and sponsors special neighborhood events, such as Good Neighbor Day and Neighborhood Cooperation Week. The 147

148 SNAP (Student-Neighborhood Assistance Program) and WIN (Working to Improve Neighborhoods) Programs engage community volunteers, neighborhood groups and city staffers in a working partnership to preserve and enhance neighborhoods. Construction Codes San Luis Obispo's construction codes are, with few exceptions, uniform codes enacted by the State legislature and used throughout the State. They set forth health and safety standards for structures, plumbing, electrical and fire prevention. The cost of meeting State construction codes -- laws intended to make new housing safer, stronger, more energy efficient and resistant to fire and earthquake hazards -- is ultimately passed on to housing consumers. In the long term, many building standards can reduce ongoing housing costs through lower utility bills and reduced insurance premiums. In some cases, San Luis Obispo has adopted more stringent construction codes than mandated by the State. Local Building Code amendments that could affect housing cost include the following: 1. Seismic Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Buildings. In 2002, there were 126 unreinforced masonry buildings identified in San Luis Obispo, many of them historic. Of these, 10 include dwellings. All URM buildings have undergone structural analyses as required by State law. City regulations require all URM buildings to be seismically strengthened by As of 2009, 79 buildings are in compliance and 47 buildings remain unreinforced. URM strengthening involves improvements to building foundations, walls and roofs to resist catastrophic damage and loss of life during an earthquake. Such improvements can be expensive, ranging in cost from $150-$200 per square foot in Construction permit and planning fees for URM replacement buildings are reduced, and fees spent on seismic analysis are credited toward architectural review, plan review or building permit fees for URM strengthening projects. Pursuant to Council Resolution No (1997 Series) establishing an incentive program for URM strengthening, the City offered to provide technical assistance in forming a voluntary assessment district to assist financing of URM improvements and fire sprinkler installation. Due to a lack of sufficient property owner interest, the volunteer assessment district approach was not implemented. URM strengthening or replacement costs may exceed property owners financial capacity and/ or force closure of buildings that do not generate sufficient income to support the improvement costs. Affordable downtown housing may be particularly vulnerable in this regard. Additional financial assistance and/or incentives may be necessary to meet the 2017 deadline and to preserve or provide affordable downtown housing. The City intends to seek State and Federal grants as part of its housing program initiatives to address this important issue. Seismic retrofits have also created opportunities to increase housing opportunities, especially in the Downtown Core. For example, the retrofit of the long-vacant Wineman Hotel 148

149 produced 48 new SRO units in the Downtown. 2. Wood shake and shingle roofing materials are prohibited, unless the material is listed as a Class A Assembly. Adopted by ordinance in 1983, this law is intended to reduce fire hazards and the potential for loss of life and property from a major fire in the City. The ordinance differs from State and County regulations in that they allow wood-shake roofing that meets a minimum Class-C rating. Additional construction costs, if any, would depend on the builder's choice of a roofing material. 3. An automatic fire extinguishing system is required in all new buildings except most buildings that are 1,000 square feet or less. Initially adopted in 1990, the ordinance requiring fire sprinklers in all residential occupancies, including single-family houses and duplexes which are exempt from the sprinklering requirement under State codes. The local ordinance is intended to reduce fire hazards to life and property, allow development where fire-flow, access or setback deficiencies might otherwise preclude it, and to reduce ongoing public costs of fire suppression. The fire sprinkler requirement adds about $5.00 per square foot to the cost of construction, or $10,000 for a 2,000-square-foot home. The added cost of fire sprinklers may be offset or recovered in the long-term since: 1) Most insurance companies have reduced homeowner fire insurance rates for homes with fire sprinklers. 2) Fire sprinklers add value to a home, and all or a portion of the costs can be recovered upon resale. 3) During development, additional cost-saving allowances are made for buildings with fire sprinklers (e.g., longer distances between fire hydrants serving a development; reduced vehicle access requirements). Site Improvement Requirements The City may require on- or off-site improvements such as streets, utilities, traffic signals and landscaping as a condition of use permit, variance, subdivision or other land-use approval. Dedication of right-of-way, public transit facilities, easements or access rights also may be required. These improvements add costs that are usually passed on to the housing consumer. This Housing Element includes policies which require the City to consider and minimize the costs of imposing additional requirements on housing projects beyond those required by State law, or necessary for public health, safety or welfare, and to periodically evaluate these requirements to determine if they are necessary to protect the public's health, safety or welfare. Americans with Disabilities Act and Housing for Disabled Persons The Fair Housing Act of 1998 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are Federal laws intended to help provide safe and accessible housing. The City is responsible for enforcing State accessibility regulations (California Building Standards Code, Part 2, Title 24) when evaluating 149

150 new construction. Accessibility requirements of the California Building Code are similar to Federal regulations and mandate that new developments be designed to ensure full accessibility and use by the physically disabled. Single-family houses are exempt from these regulations. San Luis Obispo is committed to removing architectural barriers to persons with disabilities in its building and planning programs. The City actively enforces compliance with California Disability Access Requirements which, in most respects, require a higher level of adaptable or accessible building design than federal standards. Since 1994, the City has used approximately $5 million in Community Development Block Grants to remove architectural barriers in City streets and facilities, and provided an additional $2.5 million in CDBG funds to support the private, non-profit development of housing that is both accessible and affordable to very-low income elderly or disabled residents. Compliance with building code requirements may increase the cost of multi-family housing production and rehabilitation. However, these regulations set the minimum standards that the City and developers must comply with to ensure safety and the appropriate levels of accessibility in new developments. Difficult compliance situations may be reviewed by a City advisory body appointed by the City Council to consider such matters. Under State law, housing elements must analyze the potential and actual government constraints on the development of housing for persons with disabilities. They must also demonstrate efforts to remove governmental constraints on the development of housing for persons with disabilities, such as accommodating procedures for the approval of group homes. The City has analyzed its development standards and procedures to identify possible constraints, such as policies, local building and planning requirements. City General Plan policies and building and planning procedures strongly encourage accessibility in new and remodeled housing. In general, City permitting procedures do not differentiate between housing specially designed for disabled persons and other types of housing, and City procedures encourage retrofitting existing housing for accessibility. For example, retrofitting most single-family dwellings with basic accessibility improvements, such as access ramps, path-of-travel widening, kitchen, and bathroom modifications can be done with approval of an expedited over the counter building permit, subject to a building permit fee based on the value of the work done. This reduces the time and cost involved in retrofitting for accessibility, since plan check routing and fees are waived. No planning approvals are required. More extensive retrofits to bring multi-family dwellings into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act typically would require only a building permit. Minor modifications may be approved over the counter by the City s permit coordinator. Significant exterior changes to multi-family housing or to a historically designated property to provide accessibility, such as new exterior ramps or building façade changes, typically require architectural review and can add about four to six weeks to the approval process. City zoning and development standards include provisions that add flexibility and incentives for housing for persons with disabilities and seniors. For example, handicapped access ramps up to 30 inches in height may be located by right anywhere within required building setback areas, and housing occupied by persons aged 62 or older may provide one-half parking space per dwelling unit or one space per four occupants in group quarters. Both provisions can substantially reduce 150

151 the cost and difficulty of providing housing for persons living with disabilities. Several group housing developments in San Luis Obispo provide accessible housing for verylow and low income persons with disabilities. City zoning regulations allow residential care facilities by right in eight zones, and in an additional four zones with a conditional use permit. These are single or multi-unit dwellings that are licensed or supervised by any Federal, State, or local health/welfare agency that provides non-medical, life supportive services in a family-like environment. Residential care facilities in San Luis Obispo are not subject to residential density limits, and are treated like single-family homes in setting their parking requirements. Initial construction requires a building permit and must comply with the usual development standards such as building setbacks, height, lot coverage, and require architectural review. Single dwellings occupied by up to five adults, and which are not specially licensed or supervised, are also used as group homes for low-income or disabled person. These group homes are allowed by right in any residential zone and treated as single-family housing for purposes of residential density and parking. These uses must comply with all building and planning codes, but are routine and typically do not require City approval other than approval of a building permit for new construction or retrofitting. Housing Element Policy 8.1 encourages housing development which meets special needs, including disabled and elderly persons, and Policy 8.10 has been added to promote universally accessible housing and housing that allows aging in place. Under Programs 8.22 and 8.23, the City will include universal design standards in its Community Design Guidelines and review new residential development for consistency with standards such as accessible parking and site improvements, accessible entries and path of travel, and accessible floor plans. The City will consult service agencies that work with disabled persons to prepare and adopt new standards to ensure reasonable accommodation is addressed in land use, zoning and architectural review decisions. Non-conforming Uses and Structures Some dwellings are subject to premature deterioration and demolition because of their legal, non-conforming status. A legal, non-conforming use or structure is one that was established with permits, but is no longer allowed and could not be replaced under the current zoning regulations. Examples include housing as a principal use in the Manufacturing zone. Traditionally, lenders and insurance carriers avoid lending or insuring project improvements for such non-conforming dwellings. An estimated 150 dwellings are considered non-conforming because of their location in the Manufacturing or Service-Commercial zones. Housing Element programs address this issue by encouraging the conservation of non-conforming housing, and through programs that enable low-income homeowners to rehabilitate substandard housing through low-interest loans or grants. The City is proposing an area plan for the South Broad Street Corridor which, if adopted, would rezone C-S and M zoned properties to make about 20 dwellings legal, conforming and to allow mixed residential and commercial uses. 151

152 g) Processing and Permit Procedures The development review process adds time and costs to a building project. The City's development review procedures are designed to protect public health and safety, to simplify and expedite the review process whenever possible, and to ensure that new development meets State and local development standards within time limits set by State law. The Permit Streamlining Act requires final City action within three months of adopting a negative declaration or categorical exemption for a project, and within six months of the date a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is certified for a project. Individually-built single family dwellings are allowed by right in all residential zones and in Agriculture and Conservation/Open Space zones. These need only building permit approval prior to construction typically an eight to 12 week approval process for such projects. They are also allowed in certain commercial zones with approval of a conditional use permit. To encourage small residential projects and infill development, Program 6.20 exempts the construction, relocation, rehabilitation or remodeling of up to four dwellings of 1,200 square feet floor area from Architectural Review Commission review. Such housing may be allowed with minor or incidental architectural review, a less costly and expedited review process taking about four to six weeks for approval. Residential developments of five or more units typically require more extensive planning review, including environmental review, architectural review, and subdivision or land use review. For most minor or relatively simple items which are exempt from environmental review, such as administrative use permits, minor or incidental architectural review, minor subdivisions, and lot line adjustments, the processing time from submittal to final action lasts approximately four to six weeks. More complex planning items requiring initial environmental studies such as architectural review of new commercial, industrial and residential projects, conditional use permits and variances (Planning Commission), planned development/rezoning or standard subdivisions typically require eight to 12 weeks. The City's most complex planning items include general plan amendments, rezoning, annexations and zoning regulations text amendments. Any development project that requires an EIR can take six months or longer from the date an application is filed to final City action. Development review procedures, such as public notices, hearings and environmental reviews, are mandated by State law and also add to the time needed for the approval of new housing projects. Since 1994 the City has revised its zoning and subdivision requirements to simplify and speed up development approvals. For housing developers, time is money. Efforts to reduce the time required to process development applications can result in lower costs to the housing consumer. Examples of permit streamlining actions the City has taken include: Development exceptions typically follow an administrative use permit process taking two to three weeks, rather than the more time-consuming variance process. Clear development standards, guidelines and checklists available conveniently on-line. House relocation no longer requires a conditional use permit. Demolition or relocation of most buildings 50 years or older, but not historically listed, no longer requires Cultural Heritage Committee historic significance review. 152

153 Minor housing additions, remodels and seismic retrofits may be approved by City staff as minor or incidental architectural review. Residential developments of up to four dwellings are to be exempted from architectural review. When architectural review is required, the Architectural Review Commission may grant exceptions to development standards along with architectural approvals. The City s Housing Programs Manager assists housing developers with development review applications, processing and where possible, project funding. Single family dwellings of up to four units on a parcel are allowed by right in all residential zones and in Agriculture and Conservation/Open Space zones. These need only building permit approval prior to construction typically an eight to 12 week approval process for such projects. They are also allowed in Office, Neighborhood Commercial, and Retail Commercial zones with approval of a conditional use permit. To encourage small residential projects and infill development, Program 6.20 exempts the construction, relocation, rehabilitation or remodeling of up to four dwellings of 1,200 square feet floor area from Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Such housing may be allowed with minor or incidental architectural review, a less costly and expedited review process taking about four to six weeks for approval. Single-family house additions and remodels generally require only a building permit, averaging about two to three months from application to permit issuance. Developments in historic districts and on historically-designated properties also require historic preservation review by the Cultural Heritage Committee. The Committee provides recommendations to the ARC or other decisionmaking body regarding historic significance and preservation strategies. Single-family residential developments of more than four units are allowed by right in all residential zones, subject to City development standards, state and local subdivision standards and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The R-1 zone allows multifamily housing on larger sites at a maximum allowed density of seven density units per net acre (net acre excludes dedicated right-of-way, areas within top of creek banks, endangered species habitat, and areas within drip lines of heritage trees. ). R-1 zones are typically developed with market rate housing affordable to moderate- and above-moderate income households. Small residential developments such as duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes are allowed by right in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones. Larger residential development projects, such as standard residential subdivisions and condominium developments typically require three levels of review: design review by the Architectural Review Commission, tentative tract (or parcel) map review by the Planning Commission, and environmental study/tentative/final map approval by the City Council. Average permit processing time for a 100-lot residential subdivision is about six months to one year for planning approvals, plus six months for building plan check and permit issuance. Smaller residential developments can complete planning review and permit processing in one year or less if an environmental impact study is not required. Processing and permit procedures for multi-family residential projects are similar to those for single-family developments of more than four units (such as standard residential subdivisions 153

154 and planned developments with detached, single-family houses or condominiums). Multi-family residential developments are allowed by right in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, and are conditionally allowed in office, neighborhood-commercial and retail commercial zones. Apartments and condominiums also allowed in Commercial-Service and Manufacturing zones as part of live-work or work-live developments. In historic districts or on historically-designated properties, Cultural Heritage Committee is also required. As with single-family residential development, development review typically involves a single application combining all approval requests, such as environmental review, architectural approval and (if required) subdivision and use permit approvals. Average permit processing time for a multi-family residential development project is about six to eight months for planning approvals, plus six months for building plan check and permit issuance. Live-work and work-live development projects allow dwellings to be combined with commercial and industrial structures, primarily to accommodate employees or owners of such businesses. Live/work units are allowed by right and intended to function predominantly as living space with incidental accommodations for work-related activities. Work/live units require approval of a conditional use permit and are intended to function predominantly as work space with incidental residential facilities that meet basic habitability requirements. Zoning regulations establish standards for live/work and work/live developments addressing: prohibited uses (e.g. adult businesses, vehicle maintenance and repair, storage of hazardous materials or flammable liquids), floor area requirements, access, parking and use operating requirements (i.e. occupancy and non-resident employees). Residential density of up to 24 density units (equivalent to 24 two-bedroom dwellings per acre) is allowed. This is based on total site area and not just on the vacant portion of the site not utilized by commercial or industrial uses. Such uses require environmental and architectural review (if exterior changes are involved). Conditional use permit approval requires Community Development Director s approval, a simpler, less expensive and usually quicker review process than planning commission use permit review. A conditional use permit may also be required for live/work unit if exceptions to City development standards are necessary. Mixed-Use developments are allowed by right in six commercial zones, and are conditionally allowed in the Service-Commercial and Manufacturing zones. Their processing and permit procedures are similar to multi-family housing developments. Time Extensions Securing planning approvals and construction permits involves significant time and expense by a developer as well as the permitting agency. Expiration of approvals or permits can substantially increase project costs by requiring repayment of fees, additional review time and uncertainty, and in some cases, project redesign. Normally, planning approvals expire in one year after the date of approval. Construction permit applications and permits also expire in one year after submittal or approval, respectively. In light of the exceptionally challenging economic environment for development, the City allows multiple time extensions for economic hardship. Such extensions are handled administratively, with no limit on the number of building permit extensions provided that project site conditions have not changed and there are no public health 154

155 or safety concerns posed by a time extension. h) Development Fees Application and permit fees Local governments levy fees and assessments to cover the cost of processing development applications and permits, and to cover the cost of services. These fees help ensure high-quality housing development and the provision of adequate public facilities and services. Development costs, including application and permit fees, are typically passed through to the consumer in the form of higher rents or sales prices for new housing where possible within prevailing rent and sales prices. Consequently, City fees can increase development costs and affect housing affordability. One method of evaluating whether San Luis Obispo s fees are excessive or pose barriers to housing development is to compare its fees to those in other nearby jurisdictions. In 2009 the City surveyed development fees for the County s seven cities, and for San Luis Obispo County. The City also compared fees that the various jurisdictions would charge for a new 2,000-square-foot house with a 500- square-foot garage. The survey showed that for some development fees, San Luis Obispo is significantly higher than the other county jurisdictions. Development fees are summarized in Table C-9, and comparative development fees for a detached house are shown in Figure C-4. The City also evaluated development fee costs for typical, multi-family housing development in San Luis Obispo and compared those costs to total development costs. Development fees include planning application fees, building plan check and permit fees, Fire Department and Public Works Department plan check and inspection fees and impact fees. For a typical 2,000-square foot-house with a 500-square-foot garage and a construction value of $243,500, development fees in San Luis Obispo in April 2009 totaled $34,892, or about 14.3 percent of construction value. By comparison, development fees for the same hypothetical development in the County of San Luis Obispo were $17,586. For a 42-unit multi-family residential project on a 2.34 acre site in San Luis Obispo, development fees in San Luis Obispo in September 2009 totaled $36,856 per unit on a total construction value of $5,992,000; or about 25 percent of construction value. By comparison, development fees for a typical multi-family development in the County of San Luis Obispo in 2009 were $29,000 per dwelling based on a per unit construction value of $250,000; or approximately 11.6 percent of construction value (County of San Luis Obispo Planning Department, January 2010). In most cases, City development fees assume full cost recovery for actual costs to deliver the planning, building and engineering services. Development review fees are updated annually, based on changes in the Consumer Price Index, or periodically through a detailed cost of services study. While survey results shows San Luis Obispo development fees are generally higher than those of other jurisdictions in San Luis Obispo County, the City waives most development fees 155

156 for affordable housing. City policies already exempt extremely low, very low- and low-income housing from most development review and permit fees. Housing Element Program 2.10 and 2.11 call for the City to seek additional funding sources to help offset development-related City fees for residential projects that include affordability guarantees for very-low, low- and moderate income households. Policies 2.7 and 2.8 seek to reduce or moderate the effect permit fees and processing times have on housing projects by: 1) revising or removing unnecessary or redundant code requirements and 2) adopting permit streamlining procedures to give project review, public hearing and plancheck priority to projects that include affordable dwellings. Fees Charged Annexation / Prezoning Appeals to Council / Board Architectural Review, Full Architectural Review, Minor or Incidental Unconditional Certificate of Compliance Condominium Conversion EIR Environmental Review / Initial Study General Plan Amendment w/is Historic Preservation Review (CHC) Lot Line Adjustment Table C-9 Comparative Development Fee Summary, Arroyo Grande Atascadero 7,500 deposit + Cost +24% Grover Beach 156 Morro Bay 4,557 + cost Paso Robles 5,500 + cost Pismo Beach Cost: hrly. chg San Luis Obispo SLO County 7,243 2 n/a ,565 2,187 n/a 300 1, n/a , ,200 1,239 2,305 4,375 Contract + hrly fee 15% of EIR + hrly fee 15% of EIR + hrly fee 5,731 Cost + 25% Cost 10% of EIR ,500 7,892 5,735 3,650 4,328 + cost 5,500 + cost 8,000 + hrly fee Cost + hrly fee 1,395 + Cost 3,593 Cost + 30% 1, /lot 9,884-11,740 Cost + 25% 1,994 3,484 10,000 5, , n/a 1,200 1, ,200 1,140 3,557 Lot Merger 1, Planned Development 5, ,892 5, ,620 Permit / cost 5,835 6,783 12,071 Rezoning PD Amendment 5, , cost 1,405 n/a Specific Plan Residential w/is 7,892 7,500+ 3,650 + Cost 4,328 + Cost 5,500 + cost Cost + hrly fee 5, ,617 3

157 Specific Plan Amendment w/is Street Abandonment Tentative Parcel Map 4 lots with an Initial Study Tent. Parcel Map Amendment Tentative Tract Map 5 lots with an Initial Study Use Permit, Administrative Use Permit, Major (PC) 7,892 Cost +24% 2, ,880 + Cost 5,500 + cost Cost + hrly fee 5, , , , ,381 2,991 2,580 + Cost 6,102 1,200 + cost 5,600 5, per lot 15, ,865 50% 4,205 n/a 4,657 3,400 7,635 + Cost 7,102 5,500 + cost 5, per lot 6, per lot 3, , ,143 3,205 1,355 + Cost 3,620 5,500 + cost 2,800 2,503 19, ,589-5,977 8,323 11,951 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2009 Notes: 1 Table does not list all planning fees. Only those fees applicable to residential development are included. Fees have been rounded. 2 45% of full cost of time and materials 3 With Initial Study 4 When served by public water and sewer. 157

158 Figure C-4 Comparison of Development Fees for a 2,000-Square-Foot, Single-Family House, 2009 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2009 Development impact fees Like many California cities, San Luis Obispo charges impact fees to recover the cost of services and facilities serving new development. San Luis Obispo policies State that existing residents should not bear the costs of new development. Impact fees ensure that development projects pay their fair share of the cost of constructing the water and sewer facilities, streets and other improvements necessary to serve new residents. Impact fees are based solely on the capital costs attributable to new development. In 2009 the residential water, wastewater, and transportation impact fees for both single- and multi-family development are shown in Table C

159 Development Type Table C-10 Residential Development Impact Fees per Dwelling Unit, 2009 City of San Luis Obispo Impact Fee EDU* Citywide Airport, Margarita, and Edna- Islay** Specific Plan Area Surcharge Dalidio, Irish Hills Madonna, McBride Orcutt Water Single-Family , Multi-Family , Mobile Home , WasteWater Single-Family 1.0 3,849 1, ,097 Multi-Family 0.8 3,079 1, ,478 Mobile Home 0.7 2,694 1, ,168 Transportation Single-Family 1.0 3, Multi-Family 1.0 2, Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2009 *EDU means Equivalent Density Units, multiplied times impact fee. **Water surcharge does not apply in Edna-Islay Area i) Infrastructure The City is committed to living within its resources, while planning to meet the resource needs of its citizens. Residential development requires that adequate roads, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection and other public services are available. Generally, the developer provides facilities within or next to the development site, while the City is responsible for the facilities that serve a larger area. For example, the City provides arterial streets, a wastewater reclamation facility and sewer lift stations, and water supplies, a water treatment plant and major water distribution facilities. When an area is subdivided, the subdivider installs local roads and utility lines. Historically, the costs of extending municipal services to support new development were offset by utility customers and taxpayers. Like many cities, San Luis Obispo requires developers to pay for the increased capacity of citywide facilities needed to serve development. Most sites within the City have streets and utility lines nearby, so they can be developed without significant extensions. However, expansion areas at the edge of the City will need service extensions. A specific plan is required for each major expansion area, and a development plan for each minor expansion area. These plans will address phasing of development and services 159

160 Water Sources The City of San Luis Obispo utilizes five sources of water supply to meet the community s water demand: Santa Margarita Lake (also referred to as Salinas Reservoir), Whale Rock Reservoir, groundwater, recycled water from the City s Water Reclamation Facility and additional water conservation programs. The adopted safe annual yield from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs, and groundwater resources for 2008 is 7,460 acre feet (af) which takes into account annual estimated reductions due to siltation at both reservoirs. In addition, the 2006 Water Resources Status Report added an additional 130 af of water from the Water Reuse Project and 120 af from the expanded water conservation program. Table C-11 summarizes the total water supply available to serve new development. Policy A. in Chapter 8 Water and Wastewater section of the General Plan states: Allocations from a new water supply project shall be considered available at the time project construction is initiated. With the Nacimiento Project currently under construction, this policy means that the additional 3,380 acre feet per year of water from the Nacimiento Project should now be added to the water available for new development. With these additional water supply sources, the total safe annual yield for 2008 is 11,090 af. With these available water supplies, the City can meet the projected water supply needs at General Plan build-out of 9,290 acre feet, plus an additional 1,800 acre feet available to meet secondary water supply needs identified in the Water Management Element for unforeseen circumstances. Table C-11 Water Available for Development, 2008 City of San Luis Obispo, Acre Feet (af) Year Population Present Water Demand 1 Projected Water Demand at Buildout ,697 7,260 af 9,290 Safe Annual Yield 3 11,090 af Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, Assumes one person uses 145 gallons per day per year in San Luis Obispo. All amounts in acre-feet per year. One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons. 2 Additional water needed to serve General Plan build-out population of 57,200 (present water demand plus projected increase in water demand at buildout in 2022) equals 7,260 af + 2,030 af = 9, 290 acre feet; 9,290 < 11,090 af. 3 From Water Management Element, Table 1: includes reductions due to siltation to date. Includes the increase in safe annual yield from the Water Reuse Project (130 afy), the expanded conservation programs (120 afy) and the Nacimiento Project (3,380 afy). Wastewater Treatment (Sewer) The City's current wastewater treatment facility has a design capacity of 5.1 million gallons per day (mgd). According to the City s Utility Department, this is adequate capacity to meet current needs, plus residential growth anticipated during the planning period. 160

161 j) Public Services Police and Fire In 2008, Police Department staffing level is above the standard set by the City of San Luis Obispo, as measured by the percentage of available time for sworn officers to respond to calls. The standard is for officers to have 30 percent of their On-Duty Time available for patrol response. According to San Luis Obispo Police Department, the percentage of available time in 2008 was close to 37 %. This increase directly relates to the installation of Mobile Data Computers in the patrol cars. Officers are now able to remain in the field and visible while writing reports. k) Schools Grade school enrollment in San Luis Obispo has declined in recent years. San Luis Coastal Unified School District's enrollment in San Luis Obispo schools in June 2003 was 4,317 students. In September 2009, enrollment dropped by 46 students to 4,271 students. According to District studies, new residential development generates 0.65 school child per dwelling. The District estimates that one or possibly two additional school sites will be needed to serve planned residential growth in the southern part of the City. The Margarita and Orcutt Area Specific Plans are expected to include potential elementary school sites. Due to district budget constraints, new dwellings will have serious adverse consequences for school staffing, facilities and programs unless new development adequately mitigates the adverse impact on school facilities. Mitigation is generally in the form of school fees associated with issuance of construction permits. School district fees are collected by the City and used by the District to fund school infrastructure needs. l) Inclusionary Housing Program Adopted in 1999 and amended in 2004, the Inclusionary Housing Program implements two core housing programs of the General Plan that of providing affordable housing for very-low, low and moderate income households, and establishing a housing trust fund. The program requires that most new development projects help meet affordable housing needs by: 1) building affordable dwellings as part of a development project, 2) dedicating real property, improved or not, for development of affordable housing by the City s Housing Authority or by a non-profit housing provider, or 3) paying an in-lieu fee which is used to fund affordable housing throughout the City. To qualify as affordable, dwellings must have guarantees that they remain affordable for 45 years, or are deemed affordable by design by meeting size and density standards established in Table 2A. Since adoption, the Program has generated over 100 enforceably-restricted affordable dwellings, and approximately $3 Million in affordable housing funds. The Inclusionary Housing Program is one of several tools, including incentives (eg. parking reductions, density bonuses), flexible development standards and affordable housing fund that the City uses to achieve its affordable housing objectives. The program applies to most new development, including residential and commercial development. Some types of development are 161

162 exempt from the requirement: 1) residential developments of four dwelling units or less; 2) new commercial developments of less than 2,500 square feet gross floor area; 3) residential and commercial additions, repairs or remodels, so long as such work does not increase the number of dwellings by more than four units or increase gross floor area by 2,500 or more; 4) the conversion of less than five dwelling units to condominiums within a five-year period; 5) commercial condominium conversions which do not result in the creation of new dwellings; 6) affordable housing projects; 7) emergency projects; 8) projects which provide educational, social or related community services and proposed by public or non-profit agencies, foundations or similar organizations; 9) projects which replace or restore a structure damaged or destroyed by fire or natural disaster; and 10) projects for which an approved, unexpired tentative map or vesting tentative map exists. There are two different approaches to maintaining affordability over time: 1) the property owner agrees to maintain the designated dwelling unit(s) as affordable for at least 45 years; or for purchased units only, 2) the property participates in the shared equity purchase program. Under the equity sharing program, the buyer of an affordable unit enters into an agreement with the City which upon resale of the property, eventually returns a share of the property s built-up equity to the City for use in other citywide affordable housing developments. The shared equity agreement is secured by a second trust deed recorded on the property at time of sale. The program was evaluated for its potential impact on the cost and supply of housing. The 2004 Mundie Report evaluated the impact of affordable housing requirements on land value, developer profit, and the sales prices of market-priced housing units based on a series of cash flow simulations for alternative development projects. The study found that: 1) generally, the City s proposed housing affordability requirements would not discourage new housing development. In some cases, affordability requirements would result in reductions in land value, however land value would not be the factor that determines development feasibility, 2) the indicator of impact most affected by the affordable housing requirements both within the existing City and in the expansion areas is land value (if it absorbs the entire impact of the requirements); rents and housing prices are affected least. It is reasonable to expect that if a potential developer cannot negotiate land prices down to level that would pass all of the impact of the requirements through to the pre-development landowner, he or she would attempt to pass on part of the impact to project occupants in the form of higher rents/sales prices, and 3) impacts on the feasibility of new development are most severe in mixed-use retail/office project located downtown. It is possible that the effects of the applicable requirements on land values would discourage a landowner from making the project site available for development: it is likely that a developer would consider the profits to be expected from such a project to be unreasonably low if none of the impact can be passed on to either the landowner or the tenants (in the form of higher rents). To assist housing development and partially offset the effects of the inclusionary housing requirements and other development exactions, the City has used flexible development standards, streamlined review and permit processing, and affordable housing funds to reduce development costs and improve economic feasibility. For example, the City assisted the 49-unit Wineman Hotel rehabilitation with $1.5 Million in affordable housing funds and provided streamlined review and 162

163 permit processing. When completed in fall 2009, the renovated, 3-story, former hotel will contain 48 single room occupancy rental units (plus one manager s unit), of which 27 units will be permanently affordable to low-income persons and three units will be permanently affordable to very-low income persons. 2. Non-governmental Constraints a) Land Costs Land is the second largest component in the cost of new housing, accounting for over 20 percent of development costs. Because land costs are so high, it is difficult to build affordable housing if the project involves purchasing land at today's prices. Land costs directly affect the cost of housing. In turn, land values are determined by a number of factors. In terms of residential constraints, the most important of these is land availability and permitted residential density. As land becomes scarcer, its price increases. Other factors being equal, the more residential units allowed, the higher the land value. In 2009 the cost of an undeveloped, average-size, single-family residential lot in San Luis Obispo was estimated by members of the Board of Realtors multiple listing service to be between $250,000 and $375,000, depending on its size and location. By contrast, in 1992 the cost of a typical single-family residential lot in San Luis Obispo ranged from $140,000 to $200,000, an increase of about 88 percent when compared to the 2009 figures. The average sales price per square foot for 10 vacant, single-family (R-1 zone) lots in San Luis Obispo in 2009 is $35, and ranges from a low of about $15 to a high of $52 per square foot. In 1993 the cost for undeveloped land suitable for housing ranged from $8 to $12 per square foot. Buoyed by record-low interest rates, the demand for residential real estate has continued to be very strong since 2000, despite a slowdown in other city and county economic sectors. Land suitable for residential development within City limits and in expansion areas adjacent to the City is typically priced to reflect its highest and best use. b) Construction Costs Technological advances in home building have increased efficiency and reduced the proportional costs of labor and materials. Nationally, labor and materials accounted for 69 percent of the cost of a new home in By 1989, that percentage had dropped to 53 percent (National Association of Home Builders). According to the City's building official, the construction value of an average Type V - wood frame residential construction in 2009 is $150 per square foot, up from $83 per square foot in For a typical, 1,850-square-foot detached house with a garage on a standard-sized lot in San Luis Obispo, total development cost in including land, construction, and city fees is approximately $474,000. Estimated land cost accounts for 44 percent of the total cost, construction about 47 percent, and City fees around eight percent. 163

164 c) Availability and cost of financing Mortgage interest rates significantly affect housing affordability. As interest rates increase, fewer buyers can afford to purchase a home. As rates decrease, the number of potential homebuyers increases. In 2009, mortgage interest rates have dropped significantly due to the nationwide recession. Rates for a conventional, 30-year fixed loan range are as low as 4.88 percent, and 15-year and adjustable rate mortgages are around 4.60 percent, respectively. A wide variety of loan packages and terms are available, making financing accessible for most home buyers with good credit and moderate- to above-moderate incomes. Although low interest rates in 2009 have made housing more affordable than in recent years, the necessary down payment still can pose an insurmountable obstacle -- particularly to first-time homebuyers. Lenders typically prefer a 20-percent down payment on a mortgage loan. Prospective buyers who might be able to support an 80-percent loan, often do not have the financial resources to make the required down payment. A median-priced home in San Luis Obispo costs $499,000 (SLO Board of Realtors, April 2009), requiring an $99,800 down payment to get into a new house. Lenders will sometimes loan up to 90 percent of the asking price, but an applicant's credit is much more closely scrutinized, and monthly payments and monthly income requirements are significantly higher. Consequently, financing can pose a major obstacle for first-time or moderate income homebuyers, even for those who might otherwise qualify for a conventional loan. Interest rates are determined by national economic policies and conditions, and there is little that local governments can do to affect interest rates. Cities may, however, offer interest-rate buydowns, gap financing or other programs to expand home ownership opportunities for low- and moderate income and first-time homebuyers. d) Insurance Costs Insurance costs have become an important constraint to building affordable housing. Construction liability insurance, needed by builders and required by lenders, has become difficult to obtain in California and when available, is extremely expensive. According to the Homebuilders Association of the Central Coast, liability insurance costs can equal about two percent of a unit s selling price, or $6,000 for a $300,000 condominium. In part, insurance cost increases resulted from unprecedented construction defect litigation, particularly in California, in the 1990s. Most of that litigation focused on residential condominiums. Condominium construction, a major type of new housing in San Luis Obispo in the 1980s, is one of the most effective approaches for providing higher-density, ownership housing for moderate income buyers. Condominium construction fell dramatically in the 1990s. According to local builders, this was due in part to construction defect litigation and to high insurance costs. In 2002 Senate Bill 800 (Burton) was signed into law, clarifying the grounds for construction defect lawsuits and limiting builder liability for such actions. In 2009 there appears to be renewed builder and consumer interest in residential condos, and city housing policies promote this housing type. 164

165 e) Design Expectations Housing preferences have changed dramatically in the last generation, as shown by a comparison of tract housing built in town around 1960 and housing built today. Detached homes are generally larger and include more built-in features and amenities. Even many attached condominiums, which have become owner-occupied "starter" houses, include more indoor space and amenities than older, detached housing. Those seeking homes today are children of the generation that experienced the greatest increase in real house buying power, and they often prefer large, detached homes similar to those in which they were raised. These expectations are often unrealistic given the high cost of living in California when compared with other States, and the relatively high cost of living in San Luis Obispo when compared with other areas. Homebuyers moving to San Luis Obispo from urban areas often enjoy higher median incomes and arrive with substantial equity from selling another home elsewhere. Their buying power, together with the desire for a better life in a smaller city, has fueled the demand for larger, detached homes. f) Investment expectations Investment expectations also can add to the cost of housing. Nationally, Americans place a high value on home ownership because it provides a hedge against inflation and allows us to build substantial equity in a relatively short period of time. Ironically, the favorable tax treatment established to protect home ownership has helped push the cost of housing beyond its value as shelter alone, and has created a competitive market for real estate as a commodity or financial investment. Home ownership has become an elusive goal for many first-time buyers, as prices increased in response to market expectations. Renters find themselves paying a larger and larger share of their income for housing, as rental properties are resold to a succession of landlords. Many home owners and owners of rental property benefit from significant tax advantages. In 2009 mortgage interest on loans for both a principal home and a second home is usually deductible for taxpayers, and interest on home equity loans also is usually deductible. In addition, homeowners can defer capital gains resulting from the sale of a house so long as another home is purchased at the same or higher cost, and may avoid paying taxes on capital gains from the sale of a home after the age of 55. Owners of rental property can deduct expenses such as property taxes, mortgage interest payments and maintenance costs. Also, since rental property theoretically depreciates in value over time, owners can deduct part of a property's value each year from their taxable income. While depreciation allowances provide an investment benefit for each successive property owner, they also offer a strong incentive to resell a property once the largest share of depreciation has been taken. The new, higher sales price is then offset by increased rents. Sales commissions, typically ranging from four to six percent of the sales price, also affect housing costs. 165

166 g) Environmental Constraints Environmental constraints can reduce the number of dwellings that can be developed on a given site. Slope, natural and manmade hazards, creeks and other natural features reduce the developable area of a site and often require special site grading, building or landscape design to mitigate impacts of development. Given its valley setting, ringed by hills and interspersed with five ancient volcanic peaks ( morros ) and numerous perennial creeks, San Luis Obispo must balance environmental preservation with orderly, well-designed development. Measures to protect the environment are integrated with development standards. For example, a site s residential development capacity is based on: 1) the size of the property, 2) zoning, 3) average slope, and 4) existence of natural features, such as creeks or significant native trees. The Creek Setback ordinance limits development near creeks to reduce potential impacts to riparian habitats. The required setback in most areas is limited to 20 feet from the creek bank, and this limitation reduces development capacity on sites bordering a creek. In evaluating the City s residential development capacity, staff analyzed the general environmental constraints affecting development for each property. Properties with significant environmental constraints, such as steeply sloping sites, or sites located on prime agricultural soils were either excluded from the inventory or were assigned much lower development capacities based on environmental constraints. Consequently, Appendix D reflects the realistic or reasonably achievable development capacity of sites based on natural and manmade environmental constraints, rather than on their maximum residential capacity under zoning laws. Further discussion of this analysis can be found in the Housing Element Update s Initial Environmental Study (ER ). Besides natural environmental constraints, manmade constraints may also limit the development capacity of residential land resources. For example, the number of dwellings that can be built may be limited by San Luis Obispo County Airport compatibility, City general plan noise limits, or for properties located within a 100-year flood hazard zone. The extent to which these factors affect development varies by location and the City s residential capacity estimates take these factors into account. For example, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) limits residential density within approach and take-off corridors and other areas subject to lowflying aircraft. Portions of the Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plan areas, two of the City s largest residential growth areas, are within airport safety areas; however the County Airport Land Use Commission has approved the layout and number of dwellings planned in each specific plan area. These areas specific plans include provisions that address airport safety and compatibility and ensure that future development is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. Most of the land affected by airport safety areas zones consists of service and manufacturing land uses or agricultural land and do not affect the City s ability to meet its quantified housing objectives. Within the Downtown core, the majority of the residential development is mixed-use in nature, therefore the residential component is above existing commercial structures and therefore, not precluded by the flood zone that affects Downtown s location outside of the flood zone. 166

167 The Housing Element update s potential environmental effects have been fully evaluated and documented in the Initial Environmental Study (File ). Based on that evaluation, the updated Element s policies, programs and anticipated housing growth are not anticipated to have significant adverse environmental impacts and are consistent with the City s General Plan and overall growth projections. Figure C-5 Residential Construction, City of San Luis Obispo Net Increase in Dwellings (Permits Issued) Dwelling Years Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, Population changes are shown in Table C-12. As with housing construction, population growth rates tend to correspond to regional and national economic cycles, and show an average annual growth rate of 1.02 percent during the 32-year period from 1977 to

168 Table C-12 Population Change, , City of San Luis Obispo Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2009 *U.S. Census figures; all others California Department of Finance. 168

169 Economic Constraints These are challenging times for development, particularly so for housing development. A national recession, unemployment, lowered property values, tightened loan market and overbuilding in some sectors has reduced housing development to their lowest levels since the 1980s. San Luis Obispo s economy is not immune from these conditions and in early 2010, is clearly experiencing weakness in nearly all economic sectors. Countywide, income growth has weakened, real estate sales are down about 11 percent from 2007, new home building has slowed to a trickle and unemployment is sharply up. Despite having adequate capacity for the development of housing for all income levels, the number of new applications for residential building permits was sharply down in the City in Residential property values in San Luis Obispo City have not been as negatively impacted as in other areas of the State and are only slightly down from pre-recession levels, and according to real estate professionals in the area, appear to have bottomed out, with home sales expected to rebound in 2010 in response to moderated housing prices and continuing low mortgage interest rates. San Luis Obispo City s home foreclosure rate has very low compared with more urbanized areas of California. Countywide, notices of default have declined from their apparent peak during the third quarter of These and other signs point to a modest economic recovery and housing rebound in As shown in Figure C-5, peak city housing development periods have clearly followed cycles of reduced economic activity. It is reasonable to assume, despite the severity of the recent recession, that real estate values and housing starts will rebound within the planning period. 169

170 Appendix D Residential Land Resources To adequately meet housing needs, it is essential to understand and quantify the City s residential land resources. In 2009, the Community Development Department conducted a parcel-by-parcel inventory of vacant and underutilized land in two geographic areas: 1) within City limits, and 2) outside City limits but within the Urban Reserve. The inventory also identified properties that contained blighted or dilapidated dwellings to the extent this was apparent from public streets. Survey information was derived from aerial photography, City permit records, and field visits. The residential capacity inventory is included as Appendix N. The following summary is derived from that inventory. This appendix, along with Appendix N, addresses the requirements of Government Code Sections and requiring a parcel-specific inventory of appropriately zoned, available, and suitable sites that can provide realistic opportunities for the provision of housing to all income levels within the community. The City s share of the regional housing need will be met through the implementation of a variety of strategies (e.g., available and appropriately zoned land, units built since the beginning of baseline Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) period, and mixed use infill development). Pursuant to AB 375, the City s residential growth strategy promotes a balanced approach of residential infill and expansion area development to meet its housing needs and achieve a compact, sustainable community. The adequate sites requirement is addressed through the identification of available vacant and non-vacant sites that are suitable and appropriately zoned. 1. Residential Development Capacity Calculation In estimating residential development capacity, the City evaluated each parcel based on land area, average slope, zoning, existing conditions and potential for redevelopment. Parcels in all zones were evaluated, including residential and non-residential zones; however only those parcels with residential capacity are included in Table D-4. Parcels with residential capacity are listed by assessor s parcel number in Appendix N. Estimated residential capacity does not represent the maximum capacity possible. Instead, estimates have been adjusted to take into account "realistic capacity" due to development standards, lot and building patterns, availability of urban services and access, and recent development trends based on typical residential developments in San Luis Obispo. Development capacity was determined by taking the maximum allowed density in units per acre and multiplying by the developable lot area to find the maximum capacity based on zoning regulations. A conservative estimate of 75 percent of the maximum residential capacity was then applied to all properties within the survey, with the recognition that most 170

171 properties do not develop to their maximum build out potential due to parking and setback requirements, access, and landscaping requirements. If a property was underutilized, but not blighted, the percentage of the property that was developed was subtracted from the developable lot area and the remainder (anything not developed) was multiplied by 75 percent to determine capacity. Blighted properties were considered to have development potential and likely to be redeveloped to their existing capacity only if the buildings had significant structural issues (damaged, sagging, or failed roof, wall, foundation, or porches). In these cases, the properties were not assigned additional development capacity, but were flagged as properties with the potential for redevelopment or rehabilitation. Where site features, such as lot orientation, natural features or the presence of historic buildings warranted a further reduction from the standard 75 percent capacity reduction, an adjustment factor was applied on a case-by-case basis. 2. Availability of Adequate Sites for Housing The City s evaluation of adequate sites began with a listing of individual parcels by zone and general plan designation. The sites suitability analysis identifies those sites that are currently available and unconstrained so as to provide realistic housing development opportunities prior to December 31, 2014 (the end of planning period). To demonstrate the realistic development viability of the sites, the analysis also addressed conditions which may constrain development, such as: (1) whether appropriate zoning is in place, (2) the effect of development standards and their impact on projected development capacity and affordability, (3) existing constraints including any known environmental issues, and (4) availability and/or timing of utilities and public infrastructure and services. The residential land inventory was developed with the use of a combination of resources including the City s GIS database, updated Assessor s data, field surveys, and review of the City s Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance. The compilation resulted in not only an identification of sites, but also an estimate of potential residential development capacity for these sites. The majority of the land available for residential development is located in: (1) older residential neighborhood and certain commercial zones that allow higher residential densities, including the Downtown area, and (2) expansion areas which have been approved for development. The inventory includes both small and large residentially and non-residentially zoned parcels and parcels that are vacant or underutilized and could be developed with additional dwellings. Parcels zoned to allow higher residential densities, namely R-3, R-4, C-D, C-R and C-S, can be developed at densities of at least 20 dwellings per acre and therefore, suitable for the development of housing affordable to lower income households. Except in the Margarita and Orcutt expansion areas and minor annexation areas, all parcels with residential capacity are already served by streets, all utilities and public services including police, fire, emergency medical services and public schools. Consequently, these 171

172 in-city properties are development-ready and included in the City s realistic development capacity for the Housing Element s planning period. Figure D-1 summarizes in-city development potential by zone, and outside city development potential which is not yet zoned, as of March According to the estimates for vacant and underutilized properties, there is a total development capacity within City limits of 3,300 density units (DUs), equivalent to 3,300 two-bedroom dwellings. The actual number of dwellings possible depends on the number of bedrooms in a dwelling. Figure D-1 Residential Development Capacity 1 in Number of Density Units, by Zone R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O PF C-N C-T C-C C-S C-R C-D M Outside City Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, In the R-1 and C/OS zones, each dwelling counts as one density unit (DU), regardless of the number of bedrooms. In all other zones, the number of bedrooms per dwelling determines the DU value. One DU is equivalent to a two-bedroom dwelling. 172

173 Opportunities for housing development include: a. Vacant land zoned for residential use; b. Underutilized parcels zoned for residential use where lot coverage and density are less than that allowed by the Zoning Regulations and where infrastructure needs for additional development can be met; c. Vacant or underutilized land suitable for mixed-use residential/commercial development; d. Vacant or underutilized land designated as Interim Open Space and suitable for eventual residential use once development constraints are resolved; e. Vacant or underutilized land outside city limits, within the City s Urban Reserve, including designated residential expansion areas. a) Vacant Residential Land This category includes vacant, developable parcels in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones, already served by utilities and streets. There are 52 acres of vacant residentially zoned land, with a development potential of 274 density units, equivalent to 274 attached or detached single-family dwellings, or two-bedroom condominiums or apartments. Of the total, 11 acres are zoned R-3 or R-4 zoned, exclusive of expansion areas, and can be developed at densities of at least 20 dwellings per acre and therefore, considered suitable for the development of housing affordable to lower income households. The City s primary residential expansion areas are the Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plan Areas. The Margarita Area is within city limits, comprises a total of 74 acres, and has a planned residential capacity of 868 dwellings. Three residential subdivisions totaling 394 dwellings already have planning approvals. Consequently, for purposes of determining residential capacity, the Margarita Specific Plan Area is included partially under approved development and partially under Vacant Land within the City. The Orcutt Area specific plan and final EIR are complete. Consistent with Program 6.17, annexation of the Orcutt Specific Plan Area is anticipated in 2010 and consequently, it is included below under vacant or underutilized land within City limits. 370 dwellings are anticipated to be developed in phase 1 of the project, within the planning period. b) Underutilized Residential Land Underutilized residential land consists of parcels in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones that could accommodate additional housing based on lot area, slope and zoning. The amount of underutilized, single-family or multi-family residential-zoned land equals 71 acres, with an estimated 363 potential dwellings on underutilized land in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones. Of the total, 20 acres can be developed at densities of at least 20 dwellings per acre and therefore, considered suitable for the development of housing affordable to lower income households. 173

174 c) Vacant or Underutilized Land Suitable for Mixed-Use Development There are 87 acres of vacant and underutilized land that could accommodate mixed commercial and residential uses, with a development potential of 894 density units, about 36 percent of the in-city development potential, not including specific planning areas. Of the total, 58 acres can be developed at densities of at least 20 dwellings per acre and therefore, considered suitable for the development of housing affordable to lower income households. City policies encourage mixed residential and commercial uses. Mixed uses are allowed by right in the C-C, C-D, C-R, C-N, C-T and O zones, and by use permit in the C-S and M zones. Mixed uses are also allowed in the PF zone with rezoning to PF-MU. City policies encourage mixed uses in commercially-zoned areas, particularly in the Downtown Core, an area that historically had many apartments located above ground-floor commercial uses. General Plan polices encourage housing rehabilitation and intensification in the Downtown Core (C-D zone). At 36 density units per acre, this zone allows the highest residential density in the City. Other commercial zones allow 24 density units per acre for mixed-use development, including areas zoned for Retail Commercial (C-R) and Service Commercial-service (C-S). City polices encourage multi-family housing close to schools and jobs. In 2003 the City revised its zoning regulations to expand mixed-use housing opportunities. The revisions introduced Live-Work dwellings in the C-S and Work-Live dwellings in both the C-S and M zones, a new form of housing for San Luis Obispo. The revisions also relaxed requirements for establishing mixed residential/commercial uses, and renamed the C-C zone to C-D, or Commercial-Downtown. The C-C zone was then applied to community shopping centers outside downtown. d) Vacant or underutilized land designated as Interim Open Space The General Plan Land Use Element shows desired future uses for most land within the urban reserve line. However, for some properties, the City has not determined the eventual use. Such properties are designated as Interim Open Space (C/OS), indicating that they will be suitable for urban development when certain conditions are satisfied. Examples of such conditions include the provision of access and utility service, reduction of flood hazards, or the need for and appropriate timing of urban development. Development of Interim Open Space requires approval of a development plan or specific plan showing how these conditions would be met. Approximately 147 acres of vacant or underutilized Interim Open Space were identified, with a potential development capacity of 266 density units, assuming eventual development with Low Density Residential uses. Multiple properties are included: the 25 acre Sunset Drive-in property, two parcels of about 11 acres each between Los Verdes Residential Condominiums and San Luis Obispo Creek (off Los Osos Valley Road), and portions of the Madonna Property. Portions of these parcels are located within a 100-year flood zone and are not suitable for residential development until the flood hazard is mitigated. Because this land is not yet suitable for residential development and provides open space benefits, it is considered a lower priority for development and is not included in total residential development capacity. 174

175 e) Vacant or underutilized land outside City limits, within the City s Urban Reserve and residential expansion areas The General Plan Land Use Element identifies an urban reserve line, the boundary for the City s eventual urban development. This area includes the Orcutt Specific Plan Areas, and minor annexation areas suitable for housing and located outside designated expansion areas, such as the Foothill Saddle area, Highway 1/Highland Drive area and the Madonna property on Los Osos Valley Road, just south of Froom Ranch. Table D-1 shows estimated development capacity for these areas. Table D-1 Vacant and Underutilized Land in Expansion Areas, January 2010 Sub-area Vacant Land 1 Underutilized Land Total DUs 2 Potential Dwellings 3 Acres DUs Acres DUs Major Residential Expansion Area: Orcutt Area Minor Annexation Areas Totals ,468 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, Based on Draft Orcutt Area Specific Plan. Acreage includes vacant and underutilized residentially-zoned land. 2 Density Units 3 Assumed development ratio of dwelling per density unit, taking into account a mix of low- and high-density residential development. f) Possible Rezonings Figure 1 shows the location of parcels which may be appropriate for rezoning to accommodate housing development within the planning period. All of these properties have residential development capacity and are served by streets, utilities, and public services; however their additional residential capacity with rezoning is not included in the City s total residential capacity at this time. They may be included in the future if determined necessary and appropriate to achieve housing objectives. Under Program 6.12, the City intends to consider General Plan amendments for these specific properties to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for higher-density, infill or mixed use housing where land development patterns are suitable, where environmentally appropriate, and where impact to Low-Density Residential neighborhoods would be minimal. Most of these areas are suitable for higher residential density development (R-3 and R-4) or mixed uses and could accommodate an estimated 1,200 additional dwellings. Areas to be considered for possible rezoning are described in Table D

176 Through zoning, the City sets the range of allowed uses, residential and commercial density, building height, and other development standards. At the request of citizens, land owners or developers, or the Planning Commission, the City Council may consider changing the general plan and rezoning property up to four times each year. Such changes must be consistent with general plan policies on land use, circulation, noise and other factors governing land use suitability. Where sites are appropriate for multiple uses, including residential, the City s General Plan emphasizes housing development over development of non-residential uses. Table D-2 Areas to be Considered for Possible Rezoning Address Land Use/Status/Area Existing/ Possible Zoning Estimated Number of Dwellings 3 8 A) Portion of South Broad Street Corridor and Little Italy area 1 B) 145 Grand Avenue 2 (Pacheco School) C) 1499 San Luis Drive (rezone vacant and underutilized School District property) D) 1642 Johnson Avenue (vacant School District property) The area is approximately 150 acres surrounded by the union pacific railroad tracks on the east, with primarily service commercial and light industrial uses. An area plan is proposed to guide redevelopment with adoption anticipated The parcel is occupied by the Pacheco School. The site is approximately 8.8 acres and is bordered by Cal Poly University to the north with houses and apartments near by. The site is approximately 65 acres occupied in part by San Luis High School. The area is surrounded by housing with a significant amount of office space uses. The vacant parcel is a little less than 1 acre in size (.77) and is adjacent to 1499 San Luis Drive. The location of the site will allow the two sites to work in combination to create one development plan. The area is currently zoned service/commercial/light manufacturing. The plan would gradually transition the current zoning to incorporate compatible uses to service commercial including work live studios, small scale workshops, offices and retail sales. The site is zoned Public Facility. It may be suitable for R-2 R-3 and R-4 up zoning. No longer serves as public school. The site is zoned Public Facility. It may be suitable for R-3 up zone. The site is zoned R-2 and could be combined with 1499 San Luis Drive designated for both low- and mediumdensity housing in the General Plan. The site may be suitable to upzone to R-2 The plan anticipates approximately 400 new dwellings.9 With rezoning to R-3 the site could accommodate up to 125 new units.10 A planning application with 60 to 70 residential units is being prepared.11 This address is in conjunction with 1499 San Luis Drive. 1 For additional information see the South Broad Street Corridor Plan for detailed information on the area. 2 The development of this site is prompted by specific driving factors to rezone the property. This includes General Plan policies which support higher density housing near the University and the sites current status; no longer functioning as a school. 3 Calculated number of potential dwelling units for each property takes into consideration 75 percent development efficiency. 176

177 E) 4325 South Higuera Street (former PG & E yard) F) 4355 Vachell Lane (vehicle storage) G) 313 South Street (McCarthy Tank and Steel) I) 2143 Johnson Avenue (adjacent to County Health Department) J) 3710 Broad Street (Plumbers and Steamfitters Union) The parcel is approximately 10.5 acres at the southern end of Higuera Street. The area is less developed with manufacturing to the east with housing near by. The vacant 9 acre parcel is a recent City and is located next to 4325 South Higuera near the southern end of town. The same area and status applies to this site as stated above. The site is graded and approximately 2.5 acres. There is significant amount housing and apartments in the vicinity. The vacant parcel is approximately 5 acres and located next to the County Health Department. Single Family households, townhomes and apartments are all designations within the vicinity of the site. The vacant parcel is approximately 5.4 acres. Located near the Marigold Shopping Center and across from the Damon Garcia sports field. or R-3. The site is zoned Service Commercial and is located within the Higuera Commerce Plan and the AASP S-2. The area is zoned M-SP. It is located within the Airport Area Specific Plan S-2 (areas with aircraft operations at 501 to 1000 feet above ground level) 6.13It is also with the Higuera Commerce Specific Plan boundary. The site is zoned manufacturing. It is the optimal location for high density R-4 residential development. The site is zoned Public Facility. There are residential developments along Johnson Street that are increased density. There could be the possibility to increase density to R-2 or R-3. The site is zoned C-S-S-MU. With the mixed use project on Sacramento near by and a MU overlay, it seems reasonable to incorporate residential units by upgrading the zoning to R-2, R-3. Based on the allowed residential density in the ALUP the site could accommodate 50 new dwelling units 5.12 Based on allowed residential density within the ALUP the site would be suitable to accommodate 40 new dwelling units 5. With an up zone to R-4 the site can accommodate approximately 50 density units. Up zoning the parcel to R-3 will allow approximately 70 dwelling units. With an R-2 up zone, the site is suitable for 50 dwelling units. K) Los Osos Valley Road (Pacific Beach High School) The parcel is approximately 5.4 acres and occupied by Pacific Beach High School. Houses and apartments are near by with the Costco project across the street. The parcel on the east side is where the The site is zoned Public Facility. There is opportunity for growth in this area with the proposed adjacent development and centralized location. Land use classifications within the Increasing the density to R-3 will allow about 75 new dwelling units. 5 Located within the Airport Land Use Plan and upzoning likely to require a detailed area plan. 6 Within the Aviation Safety Areas of the ALUP the delineation of aviation states Because aircraft in Area S-2 are at greater altitude and are less densely concentrated than in other portions of the Airport Planning Area, the overall level of aviation safety risk is considered to be lower than that in Area S-1 or the Runway Protection zones. Airport Land Use Plan (May 2005) 177

178 L) 2500 Block of Boulevard Del Campo (adjacent to Sinsheimer Park) M) Los Osos Valley Road proposed Prefumo Creek Commons project will be located. The area abuts Sinsheimer Elementary School and is adjacent to a cul-de-sac of housing. This 327 acre, parcel includes the remnants of the historic Froom Ranch, and consists mostly of hillsides and Prefumo Creek drainage area. vicinity would make this parcel suitable for an up zone to R-3. The site zoning is public facility; however it seems only possible for R-1 single family lots to the area based on the location and single family lots across the street. Approximately 20 acres are located within the Urban Reserve and designated for General Retail, including possible residential uses. 178 Approximately 7 single-family houses. Approximately 270 two-bedroom dwellings, assuming ½ of site used for housing. Potential Dwelling Units 1,207 g) Secondary Dwelling Units Consistent with Chapter 1062, Statutes of 2002 (AB 1866), the City amended its second-unit ordinance and permit procedures to allow second units by right in all residential zones (R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4) and the Office zone (O). Secondary dwelling units may be attached, detached or located within the living area of the primary unit on the lot. Either the primary unit or secondary dwelling unit must be owner-occupied as an owner s primary residence. Permit approval is subject to a planning staff level review of the site and building plans to ensure compliance with height, setbacks, maximum floor area, and parking requirements, and to ensure consistency with the Community s Design Guidelines. Depending on workload, the administrative plan check process can be completed within four weeks. Some of the most important standards for secondary dwelling units are below: 1) Gross floor area of the secondary unit shall not exceed four hundred and fifty square feet (450 sq. ft.). Secondary dwelling units are limited to 1 unit per qualifying property. (2) The owner shall enter into an agreement with the city to ensure either the primary or secondary dwelling will be owner occupied. (3) Accessory dwelling units shall meet all setback, height, and building coverage requirements of the underlying zoning district as determined in the City s zoning ordinance. (4) A paved area that can accommodate one additional off-street parking space shall be provided for each lot containing a second dwelling unit. As defined, paved area can be a combination of garage space, carport, and/or driveway. The planning commission may grant exceptions to second dwelling unit development standards provided that the intent of zoning regulations is met and that strict compliance with the size limitation would require significant structural modifications or adversely affect a historic or architecturally significant building. A check of city building permit records dating back to 2000 indicates that 1-2 building permits for secondary units were issued annually. Considering this track record, local housing needs and

179 development trends, and possible adoption of new incentives under Program 6.28, an estimated 5-10 second dwelling units will be approved during the housing element planning period. Although allowed in Government Code Section , the City is not seeking to apply the construction of second units towards meeting its adequate sites requirement. Continuing high cost to build SDUs based on labor, materials, and utility fees, coupled with continued weakness in the residential development sector, suggest SDU development will continue to be sluggish. To encourage and facilitate second-unit development, a new program (6.28) has been added calling for the City to consider adopting changes to the Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance, including possible incentives such as pre-approved design templates, more flexible by right development standards, fee reductions or deferrals, or other measures which would encourage SDU development where allowed by standards. The City intends to promote second-unit development opportunities where appropriate, monitor second-unit development and to periodically evaluate the effectiveness of the second-unit ordinance in promoting this form of housing and achieving affordable housing goals. The City also will prepare residential property profiles to inform property owners, developers and the public of properties with residential development potential. The option of constructing secondary dwelling units will be addressed. h) Pipeline Projects The City has a number of residential projects in the early planning stages. These are termed pipeline projects because they are going through the planning review process but have not yet received entitlements. 223 dwellings are proposed under the pending development applications and of these, 48 units are slated to be affordable to extremely low, very low, low or moderate income households. Table D-3 summarizes pipeline residential development projects as of February Table D-3 Pipeline Residential Development Projects, February 2010 Address Zone Sq Ft Acres Max Density per acre Maximum Capacity, Density Units 1080 Marsh C-D 12, Marsh C-D 27, Palm C-D-H 10, Monterey C-D-H 23, Woodland R-1 101, Johnson R-1 35, Humbert M 16, Proposed Number of Status Dwelings 4 dwellings in mixed use project 4 City parking lot with mixed use project; 5 affordable units 34 3 dwellings on a lot with historic building 3 mixed-use project on a site with a historic building 1 Subdivision to create 8 residential lots 8 subdivide vacant parcel into 3 residential lots 3 19 single room occupancy units; all very low income

180 Dalidio Mixed Zones 5,724, Orcutt C-C-PD 173, Taft C-N 18, Mixed use development with residential component; currently outside City limits; 9 affordable units 60 vacant property rezoned for future mixed-use; 12 affordable units 82 Mixed use development; 3 affordable units 20 Total Dwellings Regional Housing Need Allocation and Quantified Objectives Table D-4 Remaining RHNA Need Based on Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction or Built, January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009 Income Category A B A-B Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction or Built New Construction Need (RHNA) Remaining Need, Dwelling Units Extremely-Low (<31% of AMI) Very Low (31-50% of AMI) Low (51-80% of AMI) Moderate (81-120% of AMI) Above Moderate 665 1,033 1 (665) 0 1 (over 120% of AMI) TOTAL UNITS 1,589 1,279 (911) 678 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, No credit allowed for the number of units built that exceed RHNA. The City s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as determined by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments is shown in Table D-4. During the planning period, the City s new housing construction objective is 1,589 dwellings. As allowed by State Law, the City s RHNA is adjusted based on the number of dwelling units approved, under construction or built between January 1, 2007 and December 31, These units are deducted from the RHNA number for each income category to establish the City s housing construction objectives. 180

181 The quantified objectives promote the development of housing that meets affordability standards for the income groups in the same proportion as the RHNA allocation, and emphasize production of multi-family, higher density housing, where appropriate. Although not counted toward meeting the City s RHNA allocation in this planning period because it is located just outside city limits, housing developed by Cal Poly University on and adjacent to the campus on State land has been and will continue to play a key role in meeting City housing needs. a) Zoning Appropriate To Accommodate Housing For Lower-Income Households The Medium-High and High Density residential zones, and the Downtown Commercial, Retail Commercial, Community Commercial, and Service Commercial (R-3, R-4, C-D, C-R and C-S) zone districts provide the greatest potential for the development of housing affordable to lower income households. This is due to the economies of scale inherent in developing housing on sites zoned to allow densities of 20 dwellings or more per acre, and these zones allow residential densities of 24 to 36 density units per acre. Consistent with Government Code Section (c)(3)(B), those sites identified in the inventory as having the potential for residential development at densities of at least 20 dwelling units (du)/acre are considered appropriate to accommodate housing for lower-income households. As shown in Table D-5, the City has 89 acres of development-ready land that can be developed within the planning period at densities of at least 20 dwellings per acre, with a development capacity of 1,780 dwellings. As shown in Table D-4, the City s remaining housing need for lower income housing is 425 dwellings. Hence, the City has adequate land inventory to meet lower income housing needs during the planning period. Table D-5 Summary of Residential Capacity for Lower and Moderate Income Housing Income Group Adjusted RHNA 1 Minimum Site Inventory Capacity Density Standard Acres 2 No. of Dwellings 3 Extremely Low du/acre Very Low du/acre 89 1,780 Low du/acre Total ,780 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, Total RHNA minus dwellings built, under construction or approved between January 1, 2007 and December 31, Net acreage available after reductions for existing buildings, required parking and setbacks. 3 Assumes minimum density of 20 dwellings per acre; however dwellings per acre allowed. 181

182 4. Evaluation of Residential Development Capacity: Identifying Adequate Sites State law requires that housing elements include an inventory of land suitable for residential development and that the inventory identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction s share of the regional housing need for all income levels pursuant to Section (Government Code (a). In this context, land suitable for residential development includes all of the following: Vacant sites zoned for residential use. Vacant sites zoned for non-residential use that allows residential development. Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at higher density. Sites zoned for non-residential use that can be redeveloped for and as necessary, rezoned for residential use. To accomplish this, jurisdictions must conduct an inventory of land suitable for residential development, analyze sites availability and suitability for housing (e.g. development capacity), and identify adequate sites to meet its regional housing need, in total and by income group, within the planning period. Appendix M describes the methodology and results of the City s land inventory, addressing vacant, underutilized and blighted properties, both within city limits and outside city limits but within urban growth boundaries, that have residential development potential. 5. Realistic Residential Development Capacity, January 1, December 31, 2014 While the City s total housing development capacity exceeds 4,300 dwellings, not all of this capacity will be needed or developed within the housing element s planning period. Consequently, only those parcels that could reasonably be developed during the planning period are included in realistic development capacity. As shown in Table D-9, the City s realistic development capacity for the planning period is 1,765 dwellings. In this context, reasonable refers to a property s suitability for development during the planning period based on appropriate zoning, access to streets and public utilities, condition of property, and lack of governmental or environmental constraints that would preclude development. Not all parcels with additional residential capacity are included, however. Recently developed projects with additional capacity, and parcels with additional capacity but which due to neighborhood development patterns are not likely to be developed, are excluded. Despite recent recessionary conditions, San Luis Obispo s housing market remains strong as reflected in continuing relatively high median sales prices for small, detached houses on standard city lots in the mid-$400,000 to mid-$500,000 range, and continuing high rental housing costs. In February 2010, some key economic indicators suggest the end of the economic recession is in sight, with a slow recovery in the housing market beginning in With several residential projects approved but not yet built (Margarita Specific Plan subdivisions, Moylan Terrace, 182

183 Village at Broad), staff anticipates a surge in housing permit and construction activity during the planning period. The City will be relying primarily on residential infill on multifamily and mixed-use zoned sites, and on development in expansion areas to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower-income units. a) Realistic Development Capacity Analysis As indicated in Figure D-1, the City will rely primarily on residential development capacity in the R-3, R-4 and C-D, C-S, and M zone districts, which allow development at least 24 twobedroom dwelling units per acre or higher, to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for lower-income units. To determine realistic development capacity, staff analyzed several aspects of residential development in San Luis Obispo. First, staff evaluated how City development standards and on-site improvement requirements (e.g., setbacks, building height, parking and open space requirements) affect potential density and unit yields on both R-1 and multi-family zoned properties. For example, using a typical site plan design for a multi-story, medium-sized multifamily apartment project on a 5,000 square foot (minimum legal lot size) R-3 zoned interior lot, the imposition of the 15 foot street yard and 10 foot side and rear yard requirements, 35-foot building height requirement, the standard parking requirement and the 60 percent maximum lot coverage, the residential density achieved ranges from 70 to 80 percent of the maximum density allowed by zoning regulations. Second, staff evaluated the development readiness of parcels in the land inventory, based on appropriate zoning, existing development, and potential constraints to development such as environmental conditions or availability of street access or public utilities and services. Except as noted otherwise, most of the parcels included in the inventory are development ready and have street access, access to public utilities and services, and are not constrained; or if constrained, the constraint can be addressed through development and the parcel s residential capacity is reduced accordingly. Third, staff reviewed development patterns and trends in terms of residential density, location of new housing, and small site development, as discussed under below. Table D-6 Maximum Residential Density and Number of Dwellings Allowed by Right, per Net Acre by Zone Zones General Plan Land Use Designations Maximum allowed density units 1 /A. 183 Maximum allowed number of dwellings 2 /A. Allows densities greater than 20 dwellings/a. R-1 Low-Density 7 7 No Residential R-2, O, C- Medium-Density Yes

184 N, C-T Residential, Office, Neighborhood Commercial, Tourist Commercial R-3 Medium-High Density Residential R-4 High Density C-R, C-D, C-C C-S, M Residential Retail Commercial, Downtown Commercial, Community Commercial Service Commercial, Manufacturing Yes Yes Yes Yes Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, For average site slope of 15% or less. 2 Based on development of studio dwellings equivalent to 0.50 density unit/dwelling. b) Default Density State law has established a default densities to use as a basis for determining land suitability for developing housing for lower income households. In San Luis Obispo, the default density has been established at 20 or more dwellings per acre. Eleven City zones allow base residential densities (before density bonus) of 20 or more dwellings per net acre and therefore, are theoretically suitable for meeting low-income housing needs. These are the R-2, R-3, R-4, O, C- C, C-D, C-R, C-N, C-T, C-S and M zone districts. City zoning regulations measure residential density in density units. Table D-6 describes the relationship between residential density units and the number of dwellings that can be built on a site. In all land use zones except the R-1 zone, the number of dwellings that can be built is determined by the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit, the lot size and slope, and zone. For example, as shown in the Table, a one acre property, with average slope of 15 percent or less and zoned R-2 (medium-density residential) can be developed to a maximum density of 12 density units per net acre, equivalent to 12 two-bedroom dwellings. By constructing dwellings with fewer bedrooms per unit, the number of dwellings that can be built is increased. For example, using the same site in the above example, a development of up to four, one-bedroom dwellings plus eighteen studio units for a total of 22 dwellings per acre would be possible. An analysis of residential development trends shows, however, that the default density target for lower income housing development is most likely to be achieved in six zone districts: R-3, R-4, C-C, C-D, C-R and C-S zones. These zones allow base densities of 18 to 36 density units per acre, with a range of dwelling counts from 36 up to 72 dwellings per acre. Vacant and underutilized land in these zones is adequate to meet the City s quantified needs for extremely low, very low-, low- and moderate income housing. Given development and 184

185 redevelopment trends exemplified by residential projects in the development review process, shown in TABLE D-3, two development trends are apparent: 1) residential development in commercially-zoned properties is increasing, particularly in mixed-use developments and 2) residential densities in new development are generally on the rise. c) Small Sites Analysis Development of parcels allowing at least dwellings is desirable in terms of construction economies and effective use of State or federal grants. However older, compact cities like San Luis Obispo may not have the in-city supply of larger lots suitable for residential development. Most of San Luis Obispo was subdivided into relatively small lots in the early 20 th century, with vacant parcels of 2 to 5 acres in size now rare. To evaluate the feasibility of the residential development on small sites that is, sites generally under 2 acres and allowing less than dwellings, the City reviewed recent development projects on small sites, as shown on Table D-7. That review revealed that residential development projects approved within the last three years show a marked increase in residential densities in several zone districts. Of the 369 dwellings approved, 229 dwellings (64 percent) were developed at 20 or more du/acre. Through Programs 6.16, 6.26 and 6.29, the City will consider setting a minimum number of dwellings on legal lots in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones, and to pursue changes to residential development standards and procedures to encourage denser residential development where appropriate. In addition, the City reviewed actual built yields of small and large scale high density projects approved and constructed in the last five years. The results of this review revealed that smaller multi-family projects (1-10 units) were typically developed at dwelling units per acre, while medium and larger sized multifamily residential projects (11+ units) were typically builtout in the dwelling unit per acre range. Higher density development for the medium and larger projects is likely the result of the City providing fiscal and regulatory incentives for projects subject to inclusionary housing requirements and including affordable housing, including density bonuses pursuant to Government Code Section Table D-7 Residential Densities of Recent Development Projects on Small Sites 1 Address Zoning Site Area (Acres) Number of dwelling units approved 185 Residential density, Dwellings/Acre. Meets/Exceed s Default Density, 20 units/a.? 2040 Cypress R No 3212 Rockview R-2-S No 1063 Ella R Yes 851 Humbert R No 1324 Phillips R No 1327 Osos. R-3-H/O Yes

186 1310 Foothill R Yes 1468 Foothill R Yes 1404 Chorro R Yes 1224 Murray R Yes 730 Foothill R Yes 225 N Chorro R Yes 1324 Foothill R Yes 590 Marsh C-D Yes 1120 Morro C-D-H Yes 849 Higuera C-D Yes 579 Marsh C-D Yes 3229 Broad C-S-S Yes 1308 Monterey C-R Yes 774 Caudill C-S-S Yes 3071 S Higuera C-S-MU Yes 2240 Emily C-S-S-H-MU No 3590 Sacramento M No Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, Projects approved or built since January 1, However, even smaller sites can easily support densities of 20 dwellings ore more per acre. For example, using a typical site plan design for a multi-story, medium sized multifamily project on a 6,000 square foot lot, the imposition of the 15 foot front yard requirement, 35-foot building height requirement, two parking space per unit, and a maximum allowed lot building/lot coverage of 60 percent, three, one-bedroom dwellings plus one two-bedroom apartments are possible. This is a density equivalent to 29 dwelling units per acre. A review of real estate prices for smaller, multi-family zoned lots, particularly in older neighborhoods of the City, indicates that they are often priced competitively with large lots on the City s fringe, on a per acre basis, when costs of installing streets and utilities are considered. Residential development on sites of one acre or less have been, and continue to be, a key component of the City s housing production. San Luis Obispo is located in a valley, mostly surrounded by and interspersed with hills or morros that limit the extent of outward urban expansion. Since 1994, the City has emphasized in-fill development on suitable vacant or underutilzed sites already in the City, close to utilities, public transportation and services. When properly designed, one acre sites in the R-2, R-3, R-4, C-D and C-S zones can meet State HCD s default density of at least 20 dwellings per acre, and importantly, be compatible with scale and character of their surroundings. Of the total number of potential units identified in the Residential Capacity Survey, 900 units, or 22% of the total capacity, are located on properties under one acre in size. The survey identifies a total of 308 properties under one acre, with an average development potential of 2.9 units per site, and a median development capacity of one unit. Of these 308 properties, 170 are vacant, 186

187 accounting for 274 of the 900 potential small site dwelling units. The remaining 676 units would be located on 138 underutilized and/or blighted properties. Capacity estimates were reduced by up to 75 percent for the most physically constrained properties, to 25 percent for the least constrained properties. These adjustment factors were developed based on observed residential development efficiency showing that residential densities actually achieved are typically about 75 percent of the maximum density allowed by zoning due to topography, site conditions (e.g. mature trees, creeks, historic buildings), and property development standards such as parking, building setback and landscape requirements, and height limits reduce the development capacity of a given site. To help improve residential development efficiency and increase housing production, the City has revised its development standards to provide more regulatory flexibility and additional incentives, as described in Table C-3. In addition, allowed building heights in the Downtown C- D zone were increased from 50 feet to 75 feet provided that the project includes housing at a density of at least 36 units per acre, and meets other performance standards including enhanced housing affordability, energy efficiency, pedestrian amenities, public access, and historic preservation. Flexible parking standards, including in-lieu parking program and reductions in required parking of up to 30 percent for mixed- and shared uses, provide incentives for denser development Downtown and in residential and commercial zones outside the City core. To promote smaller, higher density residential developments, the City modified its Inclusionary Housing Program to encourage affordability by design. The changes allowed housing developers to reduce the number of affordable dwellings or in-lieu fees required based on a formula (Table 2A ) that takes into account average residential density and unit floor areas. Developments that build housing at densities of 24 density units per acre or higher and with unit floor areas of 1500 square feet or less need only provide one enforceably-restricted affordable dwelling, regardless of the number of total units. The City is considering several additional incentives to residential development, including waiving parking requirements for some Downtown dwellings and allowing leased residential parking in Downtown public parking facilities. Housing Element programs 6.10, 6.25, 6.26, 6.27, 6.28, and 6.29 target additional changes to increase housing production and residential development efficiency, included possible density increases, establishing minimum residential densities and more flexible development standards for secondary dwelling units ( granny flats ). Small Site Development Examples Below are examples of potential small site residential developments, typical of many small sites in San Luis Obispo. These include underdeveloped or blighted properties that can accommodate at least one additional dwelling unit, and underdeveloped or blighted properties that can accommodate new or additional high density development of 20 or more dwelling units per acre. 1) Sites that can accommodate one additional dwelling unit are typical of 2062 Price Street, a 7,500 square foot site zoned R-2 and developed with a small two-bedroom home located at the rear of the site. 187

188 2) Another example is located at 633 Woodbridge Street, a 14,000 square-foot, R-1-zoned property developed with a small home located to one side of the property. Properties such as these that are identified in the capacity survey can accommodate one additional dwelling unit and are likely to do so during the first five years of the RHNA period. Continuing high property values and high rents, due in part to the high housing demand from Cuesta College and Cal Poly students, makes continued infill development likely. There are many examples of similarly underdeveloped properties that were redeveloped with additional units during the past RHNA period, up until the recession and the housing market slow down that began in late When market conditions improve, these types of properties are expected to be some of the first to redevelop because of low infrastructure costs and the ease of permitting small housing developments within the City. With respect to financial feasibility and developing 188

189 affordable housing, the City expects that these properties will be developed with affordable housing following the Quantified Objectives identified in this Housing Element because of incentives and regulatory relief provided for new affordable housing units. In particular, a new Council Resolution (Resolution No. 9903) now exempts all new affordable housing on small sites from development impact fees, providing a significant incentive for affordability. In 2009, water, sewer and traffic impact fees can total up to $22,988 per unit. Another category of key sites evaluated in the capacity survey is underdeveloped or blighted properties that can accommodate new or additional high density development of over 20 dwelling units per acre. Two representative sites are evaluated McMillan Avenue, pictured above, is a 40,000 square-foot site, zoned M (Manufacturing) that is developed with surface parking. The site is adjacent to service-commercial land uses and suitable for mixed use development with medium-high density housing and the City strongly encourages mixed use development in this area, as evidenced by planning entitlements and development projects in the vicinity. The site is part of the proposed South Broad Street Corridor Plan which encourages higher-density, mixed-use infill development and redevelopment Sacramento Drive is a similarly sized property, zoned M, that was developed with a mixed-use project including 12 small two-bedroom condominium units affordable to moderate income households. The capacity survey estimates that 16 additional units could be developed on the project site as part of a mixed-use development (current zoning would allow for 22 additional units to be developed). A creek crosses the site, providing an opportunity for an outdoor amenity for future residents. 189

190 Another example of an underdeveloped or blighted property that can accommodate new or additional high density development of 24 to 36 units per acre is 1330 Monterey Street. The zoning of the property is Commercial-Retail, C-R. The property immediately west of this site is smaller than one-half acre and in 2009 is being redeveloped with a mixed-use project that will include 8,000 s.f. of commercial floor area and five residential units, equivalent to 15 dwelling units per acre. Mixed-use development is allowed by right in the C-R zone, and the only entitlement necessary to develop this property with residential units is architectural review of the proposed site and building designs. 6. Existing and Proposed Incentives to Facilitate Housing Development The City uses a combination of regulatory and financial incentives to facilitate housing development. As described in Appendix C, dwellings are allowed in 14 of the City s 16 land use zones, and Zoning Regulations include density bonuses and relaxed parking requirements for affordable housing development. Dwellings destroyed by fire, flood or other catastrophic event may be rebuilt at the same density and up to the same size provided that new construction otherwise meets current building and zoning code requirements. Dwellings can be built on any existing, legal non-conforming lot, irrespective of density requirements, provided they otherwise meet building setback, height, and other property development standards. In the Downtown core (C-D zone), the City allows up to 36 density units per acre (equivalent to 36 two-bedroom dwellings, 55 one-bedroom dwellings, and 72 studio units on one acre), 100 percent lot coverage, reduced parking, a baseline height allowance of 50 feet, a baseline floor area ratio of 3.0. As an incentive for mixed-use housing development, Downtown building may reach 75 feet with approval of a use permit, provided that 15% of the building s new dwelling are affordable to low and moderate income households, and that it meets meeting other community objectives including pedestrian amenities, view access, economic benefits, historic preservation, energy efficiency. 190

191 As listed in Table 3, the City offers a range of to developers of affordable housing, including fee waivers, deferrals or reductions, City affordable housing funds, Community Development Block Grant and HOME funds, permit streamlining and other incentives. For example, when a developer agrees to construct housing for households of very-low, lower or moderate income households, or qualifying senior households, the City offers a range of by right incentives and alternative or additional incentives. If at least 20 percent of the proposed units dedicated for affordable housing, the developer shall be entitled to receive at least a 25 percent density bonus. As provided in Program 6.24, the density bonus provisions will be updated to meet State law. In addition, the City waives planning, engineering and building application and permit fees for certain affordable projects, and can defer payment of impact or inclusionary housing in-lieu fees until issuance of certificate of occupancy rather than at construction permit issuance, thereby allowing soft development costs to be paid for through proceeds from unit sales. As part of the Inclusionary Housing requirement, developers may chose to pay a fee in-lieu of building affordable units into their projects. This is a preferred option for most commercial projects. In-lieu fees are then used to help fund land acquisition and construction of affordable housing throughout the City. For example, in 2009 the City Council used $1.5 million in in-lieu fees to help fund redevelopment of the historic Wineman Hotel for 48 single-room occupancy apartments, of which 30 will be permanently affordable to very low and low income households. The August 2009 Housing Element proposes additional housing incentives to encourage housing development, including: Program 2.5 amends the Inclusionary Housing Requirement to provide greater flexibility in the ways the Requirement can be met. Program 3.14 calls for the City to partner with faith-based organizations, non-profits, or the City s Housing Authority to expand rental housing for extremely-low, very-low, low and moderate income households. Program 6.22 calls for the City to prepare property profiles describing properties suitable for public or private housing development. Program 6.25 initiates an evaluation of residential densities allowed in various zones, with the possibility of increasing allowed residential densities in several commercial zone districts. Program 6.26 initiates an evaluation of multi-family zone densities and the consideration of establishing a minimum allowed number of dwellings on a legal lot, regardless of allowed density, provided other property development standards can be met. Program 6.28 would consider changes to the Secondary Dwelling Unit ( granny flats ) Ordinance to provide incentives, including SDU design templates, flexible development standards, fee reductions or deferrals, or other measures. 191

192 Program 6.29 would consider possible Subdivision and Zoning Regulations to facilitate small lot residential subdivisions, ownership bungalow court developments and other alternatives to conventional residential subdivision design. 7. CONCLUSIONS Based on housing completed during the period from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014, and on an analysis of City land resources with residential development potential, there is sufficient zoned land that is suitable and available to meet the City s RHNA need of 1,589 dwellings for this element s planning period. As shown in Table D-9, the City s land inventory can accommodate construction of 1,765 two-bedroom dwellings. As allowed by State law, the City s RHNA has been adjusted based on dwelling units built, under construction or approved between January 1, 2007 and December 31, Remaining housing need is shown in Table D-8. Table D-8 Summary of Regional Housing Need, January 2010 December 2014 Income Category A B A-B Dwelling Units Approved, Under Construction or Built New Construction Need (RHNA) Remaining Need, Dwelling Units Extremely-Low (<31% of AMI) Very Low (31-50% of AMI) Low (51-80% of AMI) Moderate (81-120% of AMI) Above Moderate 665 1,033 1 (665) 0 1 (over 120% of AMI) TOTAL UNITS 1,589 1,279 (911) 678 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, From Table 3. No credit allowed for the number of units built that exceed RHNA. Above Moderate housing needs have been met. The City s remaining housing need is 253 units in the moderate income category, plus 415 units in the extremely-low, very low, and low income categories. The City has 89 acres of land available and suitable for residential development at densities of 20 or more dwellings per acre, with a development capacity of 1,780 dwellings within the planning period. During the planning period, the City s housing objectives will focus mainly on providing housing for lower income households. These affordable dwellings, as well 192

193 as units in the Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plan areas, are exempt from the one percent growth target in the Residential Growth Regulations, as provided in the General Plan. Table D-9 Summary of Residential Capacity, January 2010 December 2014 Source/Location Acres Potential Potential No. of Realistic Capacity, Density Units Dwellings 1 under 1/1/10-12/31/2014 or Dwellings 4 General Plan Vacant Residential Underutilized Residential Land Vacant or Underutilized Commercial Land 2 Interim Open Space Areas Minor Annexations Subtotals 567 2,259 2,331 1,595 Margarita Specific Plan Area Orcutt Specific Plan Area Totals 1,129 3,784 1,765 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, Based on development experience the number of built dwellings is estimated at X potential density units. 2 Includes vacant or underutilized C-D, C-R, C-C, C-N, C-S, M, O and PF zoned land allowing residential by right, and mixed use development. 3 Areas within 100-year flood zone and not presently suitable for development. 4 Margarita and Orcutt Specific Plans establish maximum anticipated number of dwellings. 5 Number is based on the capacity of 3 pending small annexations: Foothill Saddle, Alrita and Highland/Hwy 1 property. 6 Potential units credited against RHNA number in Table 6. The land inventory shows a surplus of land suitable and available for residential development within the planning period beyond the minimum required to meet RHNA. Allowing a surplus of suitable residential land of at least 20 percent helps compensate for urban land left vacant due to ownership and development constraints, and thus, helps moderate land cost increases due to limited supplies of land suitable for residential uses. 193

194 Appendix E Review of 2004 Housing Element Results To develop appropriate programs and address the housing issues identified in this housing element update, the City reviewed the housing programs adopted in the previous (2004) Housing Element. The results of the programs, including their effectiveness in producing additional housing or removing obstacles to housing, is shown in Table E-1. By reviewing the progress in implementing the adopted programs, their effectiveness, and the continued need for these programs, a comprehensive housing program was developed, and is described in Chapter 3 of the updated Housing Element. Table E-2 compares the quantified objectives of the previous housing element and the actual achievements between January 2001 and October Table E-1 Housing Element Program Evaluation, Program Number Policy or Program Objective (quantified/qua lified) Result Evaluation Continue, Modify or Delete Financial Assistance Code Enforcement Provide financial assistance to verylow, low- and moderate income households to rehabilitate 45 rental units and 45 SFRs or MHs using grant funds Continue code enforcement to expedite removal of illegal or unsafe dwellings to eliminate site and building hazards Done. $192,000 in CDBG funds used to: 1) Repair elevators and install fire sprinklers for 68 downtown lowincome apartments; and 2) install fire sprinklers for 106 verylow and low income senior apartments. Done: Since 2004, the City has expanded its unsafe building correction program. Over 61 dwellings identified for unsafe or substandard housing conditions were corrected. Program has been effective in addressing accessibility and life safety improvements for very-low and lowincome apartments using CDBG funds. Most dwellings in this affordability category are apartments. Program is highly effective, as shown by fewer renter complaints, increase "selfcorrection" code correction permits and follow-up inspections. Update and continue the program to rehabilitate another 150 rental units, SFRs or mobile homes using grant funds. Continue. 194

195 3.2.3 Rental Inspection Program Homeless Programs Seismic Hazards Enact a Rental Inspection Program to improve housing stock condition Continue to support local and regional solutions to homelessness by funding SLO Homeless Shelter and Prado Day Center Educate homeowners on ways to reduce seismic hazards in older homes Done: In 2005, City began annual fire and life safety inspections for multi-family projects with 3 or more units. Done. Since 2004, $659K in CDBG funds were used to support and improve local homeless shelter and day care programs. Not done. Retrofit programs have focused on unreinforced masonry commercial properties. Program focuses on fire and life safety, not on Uniform Housing Code standards. Its scope should be expanded to address the Uniform Housing Code. City is working with local agencies and non-profits to identify need and improve homeless services and facilities. not applicable Modify and continue. Continue to include support for "10 Year Plan" programs. Continue Inclusionary Housing Regulations (Add Table 2A - "Affordable by Design" units Amend the Inclusionary Housing Regulations to require that new residential subdivision and residential development projects meet the inclusionary requirement by: 1) building the required affordable housing on- or offsite, 2) dedicating real property, or 3) rehabilitating units with guarantees the units remain affordable, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Standards, as shown in Tables 2 and 2A and as further described in the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Done. Table 2A was added to the Housing Element to promote "affordability by design." It reduced the number of affordable dwellings required for projects with smaller, higher density dwellings. Since 2004, two projects have been approved with "affordable by design" provisions, reducing the number of deedrestricted affordable dwellings constructed with each project. The projects include Broad Street Mixed-Use, which had a base requirement of 20 units but was only required to provide 10 units after the Table 2a adjustment. The other project is the 176-unit Laurel Creek subdivision, which includes two deedrestricted units, reduced from a base requirement of nine. Both projects are exemplary of the kind of high-density, infill projects that the City hoped to encourage with its "affordable by design" criteria. 195 The program has had limited application because the unit reductions don't come into play until a project has a minimum of 30 residential units. Although fee reductions may be applied to a 5-unit project, there are no projects that have met the criteria for fee reductions. The two projects that benefited from Table 2a are the types of projects that the City wants to encourage. In each case, the developers of the project actively worked to reduce the average size of the units within the project to achieve a reduction in their inclusionary housing requirement. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this process has improved affordability. Therefore, a valid concern related to the program is that it reduces the number of deed- Modify Program. Establish a program to monitor how Table 2a is used on a project-byproject basis to gauge program efficacy.

196 restricted affordable housing provided under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance without any corresponding improvement in overall affordability. The program has been effective in raising funds for affordable housing. During the early years of the fund, there was a large focus on projects that could provide a large bang for the buck. The Villas at Higuera Project produced 28 verylow income rental units for a modest investment of $18,000 per unit. The Moylan Terrace will provide a minimum of 20 affordable ownership units (two very-low, fourteen low, and four moderate income) for a $30,000 per unit investment. As the fund has grown and is better able to be sustained through investment revenue and continuing commercial development in the City, a wider range of projects will be able to be funded, including those that meet the greatest need, such as verylow income, ownership housing Affordable Housing Fund Maintain an affordable housing fund to acquire land and develop affordable housing. To qualify for such funding, affordable units must include guarantees they will remain affordable for the "longest period allowed by State law". In-lieu housing fees will be placed in this fund. Done. Affordable Housing Fund established in 2001 and has generated over $4,000,000 in inlieu housing fees. Of this, the City has used about $3.8 Million in affordable housing, resulting in the production of 60 new affordable housing units and land acquisition for another 80 housing units. Other housing programs the Fund has supported include: operating expenditures for the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund, a first-time homebuyers program for lowincome residents that has funded two home purchases to date, and downpayment assistance for moderate-income, firsttime homebuyers for a total of 10 units. Modify program to encourage actions that help the Affordable Housing Fund become self-sustaining and more effective. To achieve this the revised program should promote increased public awareness of the fund, clarified award criteria and a more competitive application process. 196

197 3.4.3 Review Building and Planning Policies Permit Streamlining Green Building Review building and planning policies and regulations to determine whether there are changes possible that could assist the production of affordable housing but that do not conflict with other General Plan policies. Such periodic reviews will seek to remove regulations that are no longer needed. Adopt permit streamlining procedures to expedite processing and permitting affordable housing projects. City staff and commissions should give such projects priority in allocating work assignments, scheduling, conferences and hearings, and in preparing and issuing reports. Review and revise policies and regulations to encourage green buildings and unconventional housing that reduce energy and materials cost. Not done. No comprehensive evaluation of zoning and building rules were done in connection with housing; however the new "I-Codes" became effective on January 1,2008, replacing the Uniform Building Code. This code includes features that promote safer, more energy-efficient housing. Incremental changes to zoning text were made in 2007 to: clarify and add flexibility to development standards, clarify resident selection process for IHO projects, and to allow increased Downtown building heights and intensities. Residential Growth Management Phasing was modified to address housing development cycles. Partially done. Preliminary application and permit streamlining procedures were prepared; not yet implemented. Done. In 2006, the Conservation and Open Space Element was adopted. It includes revised policies and programs to promote energy and materials conservation, including more sustainable "green buildings" and unconventional housing types. 197 Higher work priorities have delayed implementation. There are procedural, legal and practical reasons that make implementation difficult. Also, higher work priorities have prevented staff from completing this program. Since 2004, several development projects have been built that incorporated "green building" features or that met LEED standards or equivalent. City requires commercial projects 60,000 sf or larger to achieve at least LEED "Silver" certification. Residential energy certification is not required. Free peer Continue the program. Combine with Continue the program. Modify the program to adopt an ordinance with requirements and incentives for green building development, including residential projects of more than 4 dwellings.

198 3.4.6 Impact Fees Pursue outside funding for payment of City impact fees so that new dwellings that meet the City's affordable housing standards can mitigate their facility and service impacts without adversely affecting housing affordability Fee Exemption for Moderate Income Housing Exempt Moderateincome affordable housing from development review and permit fees if outside funding found. Not done. Very-low and low income affordable housing, and housing built by HASLO and non-profit agencies is exempted from most fees. Availability or feasibility of using grants to pay impact fee costs needs additional study. Not done. Concerns with fiscal impact of reduced impact fees, plus higher priority work projects have delayed implementation. review by SLO GreenBuild is available. Impact fees can total over $20K per unit for a typical house or condominium for water and sewer fees alone. A fee reduction can help make units more "affordable" by reducing costs, but if funding comes from state or federal grants may trigger "prevailing wage" requirements, thus increasing project costs. Grant funds have not been available for this use and it may not be worth the high cost to implement except for large residential projects. Since 2004, approximately 82 dwelling units affordable to "moderate income households" have been built. With typical water and sewer impact fees cost of $19,800 per unit (not including permit fees), waiving this fee for moderate income units would have reduced revenues available to pay for long term service provision by $1,623,600. This shortfall would have to be subsidized by other water/sewer service accounts to fund the difference. See discussion under above for discussion of where "prevailing wage" laws may be triggered and result in increased construction costs for affordable housing when grant funds are used. Continue the program. (2.9 in new HE). Fees are waived for lower income housing units and net benefit of program when prevailing wage is considered is doubtful. However it is still desirable to continue to seek outside funds. Continue the program. Net benefit of program when prevailing wage is considered is doubtful. City Affordable Housing Funds can be used to assist with development costs for affordable housing projects, However it is still desirable to continue to seek outside funds. 198

199 3.4.8 Public/Private Actions Financial Tools Help coordinate public and private actions to encourage housing Assist with issuance of bonds, tax credit financing, loan underwriting or other tools to develop and preserve affordable housing Done. The City has negotiated with private developers to abandon right-of-way or to sell city-owned land to enhance feasibility of affordable housing projects (e.g. Moylan Terrace) Done. Under this program, CDBG, BEGIN, HOME and Affordable Housing Funds have been used to help develop 10 affordable ownership units and 100 rental units since The rental projects include Del Rio Terrace (40 units on 1325 Ella), Judson Terrace Lodge (32 units on 3042 Augusta) and Villas on Higuera (28 units on 3085 South Higuera). This has been used on a case-by-case basis, mainly for projects involving City-owned real property or r.o.w.. It is an effective, relatively low-cost technique to improve development feasibility and show support for affordable housing with little or no fiscal impact. This has been implemented as opportunities arise with new development. For example, Laurel Creek development includes 10 affordable dwellings plus other "affordable by design" dwellings in return for a City investment of $700,000, or about $70,000 per unit, which leverages $300,000 is State BEGIN program funds all of which is paid back to the City with interest to be used for future affordable housing projects. This is an effective, relatively low-cost technique to improve development feasibility and show support for affordable housing with minimal fiscal impact, since it is funded wholly or in part by grant funds or impact fees. Continue the program. Continue the program. 199

200 Amend Affordable Housing Standards Affordable housing atrisk of conversion Amend Affordable Housing Standards to adjust Moderate Income rent costs With HASLO and others, provide technical assistance to tenants, property owners and community at large on ways to preserve at-risk affordable housing. Notify owners of "at-risk" affordable units of preservation programs and incentives 2 years before possible conversion date. Augments Program which will enable tracking of at-risk units Done. In 2007, the City modified the formula used to calculate Moderate Income affordable housing rents and sales prices. The purpose of the amendment was to increase the range of people within the 80%- 120% AMI group who could afford moderate income housing. Partially done. Recent affordability agreements are easily located and tracked, however these agreements are for a 30 or 45 year period and are none are within two years of their affordability expiration dates. Therefore, this program has not been initiated with the tracking of affordability agreements but it has not been completed. Reaction to the changes has been mixed. It has increased the ability of moderate income households to afford City established, moderate-income rents. But, the change has not been positively received by the development community, particularly owners of existing apartment buildings with affordable units that were required to reduce their rents. Since its adoption in the 1980s, staff has administered the affordable housing standards based on Council direction. Increasing complexity in housing development, lending and government requirements supports the need to re-evaluate the existing standards and possibly propose an update to our current affordable housing standards. Expectations not fully met as affordability deadlines not close; however underlying need for goal remains the same. As ownership units change hands, affordability agreements are renewed which preserves those units as an ongoing resource of affordable ownership units. Modify the program to review the Affordable Housing Standards' formulas and to adopt these by Council Resolution, with or without changes. Continue the program by tracking affordability agreements and take appropriate actions to implement the program if any deed-restricted affordable housing nears the end of its affordability term. 200

201 Technical Assistance - Housing Developers Affordable Unit Removal Tenant Relocation Assistance Review building, zoning and fire codes to preserve/enc ourage housing and prevent conversion to other uses Housing Rehabilitation Program With HASLO and others, provide technical assistance on design strategies for affordable housing. Provide brochure/update housing website by January 2005 When the City permits removal of affordable housing in connection with a municipal project, it shall assist displaced residents find affordable replacement housing and assist with relocation costs. When the City permits removal of affordable housing, developer must assist displaced residents find affordable replacement housing, including such measures as first priority in purchasing and renting new affordable units to be built on-site, assistance with relocation costs, or other financial measures. Remove/modify codes that discourage housing and encourage housing conversion Using State or Federal grant funds, City will establish a housing rehabilitation program offering low cost loans or other rehabilitation to those who cannot afford conventional financing. Done. Website updated and brochure produced detailing City policies and incentives to developers and owners on affordable housing Not done. No City project has displaced any deed-restricted affordable housing units. Not done. This program has not been applied to any developments, largely due to timing. A small number of approved and proposed Downtown development projects would have displaced renters, however rentals were discontinued prior to project approvals. Example: six apartments above Muzio's Store now vacant in connection with Chinatown MXD. Not done. No comprehensive evaluation of zoning and building rules was done in connection with housing for code changes that would preserve housing and discourage conversion to non-residential uses. Partially done. The City has used CDBG funds to rehabilitate very-low and lowincome apartments and group housing. Affordable Housing Funds also available for this purpose. SFRs and mobile homes have not participated in the program since 2004, but CDBG funds were used for that purpose prior to Part of City's public outreach program. n/a This is similar to Program This is essentially the same as Program Use of CDBG funds for individual rehab projects are labor intensive and consequently, a low priority for use of affordable housing funds. Continue. Update policies and specific incentives as necessary. Modify and Continue. Add provision to address timing of removal of rental housing. Delete and combine with Program Add language to address timing issue. Delete and combine with Program Modify and continue the program to use CDBG funds more effectively through the City's Housing Authority and/or housing non-profits working with owners of SFRs and MHs. 201

202 3.6.5 No Net Housing Loss Historical Residential Resources Reduced Affordability Term Affordable housing atrisk of conversion Mixed-Income Projects Preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core (C-D zone) and the Downtown Planning Area by adopting a "no net housing loss" program by amending the Downtown Housing Conversion Permit Ordinance. This amendment shall ensure that within each area, the number of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings added. Identify residential properties and districts eligible for local, State or Federal historic listing and prepare guidelines and standards to help property owners repair, rehabilitate and improve properties in a historically and architecturally sensitive manner. To encourage housing rehabilitation, amend the Affordable Housing Standards to allow a reduced term of affordability for rehabilitated units, with minimum 3- year term. Develop and implement tracking procedure to identify and notify owners of affordable housing units at-risk of conversion Review and revise new development proposals to ensure compliance with mixed-income policies Partially done. The Downtown Housing Conservation Program SLOMC Ch was amended in 2004 to create a "no net housing loss" program in the Downtown Core and Planning Area. Partially done. Master List updated in 2008, and City List updated (2008); and City using Mills Act Program to encourage rehabilitation of historic buildings. CHC has requested funding to conduct citywide historic survey. Guidelines and listing criteria already established. Not done. This program has not been implemented. No City grant funds have been used to rehabilitate housing; hence, affordability requirements have not applied. Partially done. Recent affordability agreements centrally located, however these contracts, unless they are 'equity share' agreements are likely to not be close to their lapse dates. Done, thru Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; although payment of in-lieu fees has reduced effectiveness of mixed-income policies. 202 Program's effects are unclear. Inconsistent interpretation, tracking problems and lack of enforcement have resulted in loss of dwellings targeted for preservation (e.g. Muzio's apartments, Warden Block) Mills Act program has been highly successful, with over 40 property owners using program's property tax savings to upgrade their homes and improve neighborhoods. not applicable Expectations not fully met as program not fully implemented. Underlying need for goal remains the same. Slightly more than 1/6th of units in approved mixeduse developments since 2004 set aside as designated affordable units. However, majority of these units are from single completely affordable Modify and continue the program to clarify terms, reporting and tracking of residential units lost and added, and enforcement. Continue the program. Continue the program. Continue the program and track all affordability agreements, particularly older agreements with lapse dates between 2009 and Continue the program.

203 development by People Self Help Housing. When given the options, most developers are choosing to pay fees rather than build affordable housing Housing Variety and Tenure Residential Growth Management Exemptions Flexible Parking Regulations Review new development proposals for compliance with regulations, and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the housing variety and tenure policies. Exempt all housing in Downtown Core (C-D zone), and all enforceablyrestricted housing for very-low, low and moderate incomes from the Residential Growth Management Regulations. Amend Zoning Regulations to allow flexible parking rules for housing development, especially in the Downtown Core (C- D zone), including the possibility of reduced or no parking, with appropriate guarantees. Done, Eight mixed-use developments approved since 2004 with variation in tenure type, number of bedrooms, and unit size Done. SLOMC Ch amended to include the exemptions. Not done. Staff has prepared draft ZR amendments and is reviewing them with other City departments. Approved mixeduse developments made up of approximately 2/3 rental units and 1/3 owner units. Rental units range from studio to 3- bedroom from under 500 SF to greater than 2000 SF. Owner units range from multifamily attached, to small lot singlefamily detached from 800 to 2300 SF. Affordable units available up to 1000 SF. Dwellings enforceably restricted to very low-, low-, and moderate- income households exempted from growth management regulations in 2007 zoning code update. Infill is also exempted from Growth Management. n/a Continue the program. Continue the program. Continue the program. 203

204 Downtown Housing Incentives City Parking Facilities Affordable Housing in Expansion Areas Provide incentives to encourage housing in the Downtown Core (C- D zone), particularly in mixed-use developments. Amend the Parking Management Program to allow flexible use of city parking facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate. Specific Plans for expansion areas shall include land zoned to meet regional housing needs for very-low and low-income, including R-3 and R-4 zoning. Done. Downtown height ordinance, parking and zoning standards encourage and provide incentives for housing and mixeduse. Not done. Staff has prepared draft ZR amendments, including use of City parking facilities, and is reviewing them with other City departments. Partially done. Margarita Area Specific Plan includes two sites designated for 20 units each of affordable housing in R-2, R-3, or R-4 zone; the Orcutt Specific Plan Area includes 0.88 acres designated for R-3 development and 5.4 acres designated for R- 4 development designated for units of small, self-help housing. The expansion areas are subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provisions. No projects have been built that take advantage of the Downtown building height and intensity ordinance, so it's not possible to gauge it's effectiveness. However, all new development downtown is required to include residential. n/a Annexation of the Margarita Area is complete and although several subdivisions have been approved, no requests for construction permits have been submitted. Orcutt Area Specific Plan approval and annexation is estimated to be 6-12 months away. Continue the program. Continue the program. Continue the program and amend to reflect current status of expansion areas. 204

205 Specific Plan Residential Densities Specific Plans for expansion areas shall designate sufficient areas at appropriate densities to accommodate the types of dwellings that would be affordable in the percentages called for by the Housing Element, and include programs to ensure the affordable dwellings are built. Partially done. Specific Plan's include appropriate zoning to achieve densities that would help meet City's RHNA needs; however they do not have programs that ensure such units get built (that is subject to the market place). The Orcutt Area Specific Plan, once developed, will be the densest neighborhood in the City, with single-family homes allowed on lots as small at 4,500 s.f. and a majority of the acreage reserved for higher density development. Overall, 52% of the residential land in the OASP, allows for residential density between 12 and 24 units per acre. In addition, a full 5% of the units in the Orcutt Area are required by ordinance to be low-income, and another 10% will be moderate income (59 and 100 units, respectively). These are the minimum levels of affordability required by ordinance. In the Margarita Area, 868 units are planned and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance also requires deedrestrictions to accomplish 15% affordability (5% low-income and 10% moderate income) for a total of 87 moderateincome units and 43 low-income units. This specific plan area also allows for mixeduse development, but high-density development is very limited because of restrictions related to the proximity of the airport. Continue the program (OASP not adopted yet.) and amend to reflect proposed density mix. 205

206 Rezonings to promote higherdensity, infill housing Consider General Plan amendments to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for higherdensity, residential or mixed uses. Six specific areas are identified as having infill potential. Partially done. Some re-zonings have occurred to promote higher density, infill housing. Of the six sites identified, two rezonings were completed, two are in process, one has been denied by the Airport Land Use Commission, and one was determined infeasible since the site was deemed not available for residential use by its owner (San Luis Coastal Unified School District). Peoples Self Help Housing Corporation developed an affordable rental housing project on Higuera St. between Fontana and Prado Road, and the Creekston project has been approved and has started construction on the property on Orcutt Road. Pipeline projects include a site rezoned to support a Housing Authority project for 80 units in the South Broad Street Corridor (SBSC) Area; and a draft plan in process which would accommodate about 400 new dwellings in the SBSC. Of the other three areas, two applications have been submitted one on the school district property on Johnson Drive and another for property on Southwood Drive. The former is currently in process and the latter was supported by City staff but denied by the Airport Land Use Commission. The applicant has since modified the application to request Office uses instead. The final site identified is School District property located off of Ferrini Road which is developed with an elementary school & ball-fields and the district has indicated they have no interest in abandoning this site as a school facility. In addition to sites identified in the Housing Element, several properties near the Cal Poly campus have been rezoned from R-3 to R-4 to accommodate higher density housing in a location where pedestrian access to the Cal Poly campus is available. Modify the program to address revised sites with rezoning potential for higher density, infill housing. 206

207 Countywide Affordable Housing Fund Support efforts to establish a countywide affordable housing fund. City should use Inclusionary Housing "in-lieu" fees to assist affordable housing developments. Done. The Housing Trust Fund (HTF) is a private nonprofit corporation that was created to increase the supply of affordable housing in San Luis Obispo County for very low, low and moderate income households, including households with special needs. Rather than build or operate housing directly, the HTF provides financing and technical assistance to help private developers, nonprofit corporations and government agencies produce and preserve homes that working families, seniors on fixed incomes and persons with disabilities can afford to rent or buy. The City sponsored the HTF with $30,000 per year of funding for a total of $120,000 of assistance so far from the Affordable Housing Fund (from Inclusionary Housing fees). Since that time, the HTF has been selfsustaining. No HTF funds have been used for affordable housing projects in the City of San Luis Obispo, however, the SLOCHTF also provides technical assistance to government agencies and affordable housing developers in the County and the City has used their staff expertise to guide decisions on recent project proposals. See programs and for affordable housing projects assisted with In- Lieu fees and other sources. Continue support for SLOCHTF. Combine Affordable Housing Fund portion of this program with and

208 Balance annexation and infill development Encourage residential development by focusing as much on infill development and "densification" in City Limits as on annexation of residential land. Done. Infill development accounts for the majority of the housing applications in the last five years. Land Use Element policies require all new commercial development in the downtown area to include housing and as a result of seismic retrofit requirements, many downtown commercial properties are redeveloping. There are at least ten projects in the downtown area that incorporate residential development of up to 175 units as part of their proposals. The annexation effort in 2008 was focused on incorporating the Margarita Area into the City limits so that development in accordance with this new residential neighborhood plan could be pursued. Private annexation requests, such as the east hillside properties, have been held up by infrastructure and/or environmental constraints. Development applications and housing construction have declined significantly since It is too early to determine if this program has been effective. Continue the program. 208

209 Use Surplus Public Land for Housing Multi-Family Housing Standards Seek opportunities with other public agencies and public utilities to identify, assemble, develop, redevelop and recycle surplus land for housing, and to convert vacant or underutilized public, utility or institutional buildings to housing. Develop multifamily housing design standards to promote innovative, attractive and wellintegrated higherdensity housing. Include streamlined development review and development incentives for affordable multifamily housing. Done on an ad-hoc basis as opportunities emerge. For example, staff worked with the school district to evaluate potential development of approximately one acre of surplus San Luis Coastal Unified School District property where the High School is located. The school district is pursuing development of this site (application 56-08) and staff is encouraging this effort. Staff also worked with County staff and several County Supervisors from Districts 5 and 2 in order to facilitate residential development of County-owned property off of Johnson Avenue. The County has not yet submitted an application for this project but is still working with an adjacent owner to resolve some development issues. Staff has developed a list of City-owned land to facilitate discussions with non-profits and developers who may be in a position to develop affordable housing. Partially done. Multifamily housing design standards are included in Ch. 5.4 of the Community Design Guidelines, which include design guidelines for Multi- Family and Clustered Housing Design. The Inclusionary Housing Standards promote affordability by design through Table 2A and offer development incentives for qualifying projects. Density bonuses have been supported where appropriate. Streamlined development review procedures have not been adopted. 209 Program is beginning to show results; however no affordable units have been created under this program. The intent of this program was to expand rental housing opportunities; however since 2004, most MF housing has been residential condominium (ownership). Continue the program. Modify the program to focus on establishing streamlined development review procedures for MF rental housing.

210 Assist development of 90 affordable ownership or rental units Seek New Revenue Sources Financially assist in the development of 90 ownership or rental units affordable to verylow, low- or moderate income households using State, Federal and local funding sources. Actively seek new revenue sources, including State, Federal and private/non-profit sources, and financing mechanisms to assist affordable housing development and first-time homebuyer assistance programs. Done. The City has facilitated the development of 110 affordable housing units using State, Federal and local funding sources. The projects include Del Rio Terrace (40 units on 1325 Ella - fee exemptions and tax credits), Judson Terrace Lodge (32 units on 3042 Augusta - fee exemptions, Affordable Housing Fund Assistance and CDBG funding) and Villas on Higuera (28 units on 3085 South Higuera - tax credits, fee exemptions, CDBG funding and Affordable Housing Fund assistance). The City has also facilitated the production of 10 units in the Laurel Creek project with BEGIN program assistance. Done as opportunities emerge as an on-going program. The City secured a HOME fund grant of $231,000 to establish a First Time Homebuyer program for low and very low income households. The City matched the grant with $231,000 in Affordable Housing Funds and 2 loans have been made: 2975 Rockview 19 Low income household escrow closed 1043 Ella 8 Very low income household escrow closed Program has been extremely effective and the City will continue to pursue using its Affordable Housing Fund in conjunction with other funding sources to improve the efficiency of our local funding sources. Program has been effective, raising $531,000 in grant funds and contributing to the development of 12 affordable dwellings. Modify the program to adjust number of affordable dwellings to be assisted based on revised RHNA numbers. Continue the program. Also, the City successfully applied for BEGIN funds for the Laurel Creek development, 176 units, most of which qualify as affordable by design due to their smaller size. The inclusionary requirement was for only 2 deed-restricted units. Staff negotiated with the developer to provide an additional 10 units. The City is using $300,000 in 210

211 BEGIN grant monies and $700,000 in Affordable Housing Funds for downpayment and loan rate buy-down assistance for these 10 moderate income households Exempt up to 4 small houses from ARC review Downtown Residential Density Limits Dedicate City- Owned Property for Affordable Housing Exempt the construction, relocation, rehabilitation or remodeling of up to 4 dwellings of up to 1200 sf each from Architectural Review Commission review. Consider amendments to the Zoning Regulations to increase residential density limits in the Downtown Core. Assist in the production of longterm affordable housing by indentifying vacant or underutilized City-owned property suitable for housing, and dedicate public property, where feasible, for such purposes. Partially done. SLOMC Ch includes exemption for three small houses but the ordinance language is not consistent with this program, and in the Community Design Guidelines, architectural review is required for three or more units. The language in both the Municipal Code and the Community Design Guidelines needs to be amended for consistency and clarity and direction provided to staff for a uniform application of this program. Not done. Downtown C-D zone already allows the highest residential density in the City at 36 Density Units per Acre; 45 DU/A with 25 percent density bonus. Anderson Hotel and Wineman Hotel have densities equivalent to 100 and 50 Density Units/Acre, respectively. Partially done. City has offered City property to support design of Moylan Terrace project which contains 27% of its units as affordable housing. Program has been marginally effective, primarily due to differences between program intent and ordinance language which has confused implementation. Procedures and related codes need to be updated to implement this program. Density changes should be considered in relation to possible parking program changes, and Downtown building height and intensity. Additional efforts should be made to identify publiclyowned property suitable for ground lease, sale, or dedication for housing development. Modify the program to update development review procedures and ordinances for consistent implementation of this policy. Continue the program. Continue the program. 211

212 Neighborhood Participation Identify Neighborhood Needs Neighborhood Improvement s Neighborhood Parking Strategies Implement varied strategies to ensure residents are aware of and able to participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhoods early in the planning process. Identify specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends and opportunities for improvements. Work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals to address concerns. Help fund neighborhood improvements, including sidewalks, traffic calming devices, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and street lighting to improve aesthetics, safety and accessibility. Continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies, including parking districts, to address the lack of on- and off-street parking in residential areas. Done. City follows public noticing procedures that provide extraordinary public notice, including legal notices, sign posting on the site, and direct mail. In addition, city holds quarterly public Neighborhood Services Team meetings which are noticed through the Tribune and channel 20 as well as notices to anyone who has expressed interest to talk about enforcement issues in the community. City staff from various departments also participate in monthly meetings of the Student Liaison Committee which includes Cal Poly and Cuesta College ASB members as well as neighborhood association members. Partially done. Through Code Enforcement and neighborhood response, City addresses specific problems and issues. Long range planning opportunities have yet to be addressed. Done and on-going. Since 2004, the City has invested over $1.9 Million in neighborhood improvements, including curb ramps, sidewalk repairs and replacement, street trees, graffiti removal, crosswalks and public transit facilities. Done. Neighborhood Parking District established and ongoing, with eight residential neighborhood parking districts established. 212 Code enforcement staff has reported positive response from neighborhood groups and often relays questions that arise from meetings. The bulk of funding has gone for curbramp replacement and street improvements. Additional public outreach to gauge neighborhood needs should be considered; possibly in connection with the Land Use and Circulation Element updates. As measured by neighborhood interest in establishing districts, this program has been successful. Greater effort on demand-based parking strategies and alternative Continue the program. Continue, with emphasis on neighborhood planning opportunities. Continue the program. Continue the program.

213 transportation should be considered for Downtown and other high parking demand neighborhoods Support Services for the Homeless Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Identify Sites for Tenant- Owned Mobile Home Parks or Residential Cooperatives As funding allows, support local and regional solutions to meeting the needs of the homeless and continue to support, jointly with other agencies, shelters for the homeless and for displaced women and children. Continue the Mobile Home Rent Stabilization program to minimize increases in the cost of MH rents. Identify sites in specific expansion areas suitable for tenant-owned mobile home parks, cooperative housing, manufactured housing, self-help housing, or other types of housing that meet special needs. Done. Since 2004, the City has provided approximately $950,000 to support the Maxine Lewis shelter and Prado Day shelter - services to homeless persons. The City is working with SLO County and other agencies to identify a site and develop an expanded homeless services center. Done. Partially done. These housing types are allowed in all residential zones. No special provisions for these are included in the Margarita Area specific plan. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan (still in draft) identifies the R-4 area adjacent to an existing MH park as being particularly well-suited for expansion of that park or development of a new MH park. The program has been successful as measured by number of individuals served and meeting an immediate need; however homeless facilities are increasingly inadequate to handle countywide needs by region (north, coastal, central, and south county) and do not address underlying issues. The program has been successful from a renter's perspective. In general, mobile homes are the City's most affordable form of housing. The effect of rent control on MH park development and maintenance of existing parks should be evaluated. See above. Continue the program and modify to incorporate "10 Year Plan" programs. Continue the program. Continue the program. 213

214 Non- Dormitory Housing at Cal Poly University On-Campus Fraternity/Sor ority Housing Student Housing Plan and "Good Neighbor Program" Universal Design Information Energy Conservation Education Advocate developing nondormitory housing on the Cal Poly University campus and refurbishing existing campus housing and its associated programs to make campus living more attractive and affordable. Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups. Jointly develop and adopt a student housing plan and "good neighbor program" with Cal Poly University, Cuesta College and City residents. The program would seek to improve communication and cooperation between the City and the schools, set on-campus student housing objectives and establish clear, effective standards for student housing in residential neighborhoods. Provide public educational information at the Community Development Department's public counter on universal design concepts in new construction. Educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies on energy conservation issues, including the City's energy conservation policies and instruct that they work with applicants to achieve the housing goals that conserve energy. Done. Since 2004, the Cal Poly has approved and partially completed 3,500 beds of student housing, plus 69 units of faculty housing on or adjacent to campus. Not done. Past attempts to include "Greek" housing in the Campus Master Plan have not been successful. Done. Statewide "Town Gown" conference held in SLO last October. Student liaison towngown meetings held monthly between ASI (Associated Students Inc.), neighborhood groups, the Mayor, City Manager, Supervisor, Cuesta and Cal Poly student representatives. Have focused on Mardi Gras, "SLO Solutions" - mediation services (landlord-tenant, neighborhood conflict), Community Relations, Transit, and marketing campus/city events and service. Done. Universal Design brochure completed and available at public counter. Partially done. CDD staff training completed in LEED and Green Building standards in Free Peer Review of Plans is available for educating applicants about opportunities to incorporate energy efficiencies into their projects. 214 Cal Poly's housing programs have expanded significantly; however additional on-campus housing is still needed and possible with redevelopment of older dormitories along Perimeter Road, and by including housing at Cuesta College. No recent (last four years) talks have been undertaken. As judged by student and government participants, the program has successfully filled a need for improved town-gown communication and relations. Difficult to gauge success of program; brochures not often requested. Use of City website may make the information more accessible and useful. The program has been successful in raising staff awareness and knowledge of green building standards. Advisory bodies (ARC, PC, CHC) have not been trained. "Refresher" staff training needed annually to keep up to date on changes Continue the program. Continue the program. Continue, with amendments and ongoing program operation/funding. Continue the program. Continue the program.

215 to LEED and Green Build standards Residential Energy Conservation Solar access and siting Street and Access Ways City/County Housing Impacts San Luis Obispo Housing Market Area Revise the Energy Conservation Element to address residential energy conservation for new and existing dwellings. Evaluate solar siting and access rules to determine if they ensure longterm solar access for new or remodeled housing and revise if needed. Consider adopting street and accessway standards that reduce the amount of pavement for automobiles. Work with the County of San Luis Obispo to mitigate housing impacts on the City due to significant employment expansion in unincorporated areas adjacent to the City, including County participation in Inclusionary Housing Programs. Encourage residential developers to promote their projects within the SLO Housing Market area first (SLO County). Done. Conservation and Open Space Element adopted in 2006 and includes expanded sections on residential and commercial energy and materials conservation. Partially done. Solar access reviewed as part of the Downtown Height Ordinance and in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. Not done. Will be considered as part of revised Land Use and Circulation Elements. Partially done. Some progress made with joint adoption of a City/County Memorandum of Understanding regarding development review of projects in the unincorporated County on the City's urban fringe; however the effects of commercial and residential projects in the County on City housing has not been fully addressed. Partially done. In lotteries for affordable housing projects the City has limited promotional activities and affordable housing eligibility to people working or living in SLO County. Effectiveness difficult to gauge. California Energy Code changes to take effect in 8/09 will achieve energy efficiency increases of up to 25% over previous standards. The program's intent was to review setbacks and solar access in all residential zones, and this has not been accomplished. not applicable Commercial and large-lot residential development on the city's urban fringe has continued since Through the County Referral program, efforts to apply the City's Inclusionary Housing Program on projects with City housing impacts have not been successful. Difficult to gauge success of program, since there have been no large residential subdivisions developed since 2004 that would be likely to draw out of housing market area buyers. Continue the program. Continue the program. Continue the program. Continue the program. Continue the program. 215

216 Establish Campus Housing/Enrol lment Link State Legislation Legal, Conforming Non- Residential Uses Advocate the establishment of a link between enrollment and the expansion of campus housing programs at Cal Poly University and Cuesta College to reduce pressure on City's housing stock. Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for state legislation to 1) fund adequate oncampus housing, and 2) allow more flexibility for State universities and community colleges to enter into public private partnerships to build student housing. Adopt measures ensuring the ability of legal, conforming non-residential uses to continue where new housing is proposed on adjacent or nearby sites. Done. This has been a long-standing City policy that has guided housing discussions with Cuesta College and Cal Poly; however it is not a policy that the State has closely followed. Partially done. City has supported Cal Poly efforts to enter publicprivate housing partnerships; however we have not lobbied with other jurisdictions to secure more State funding for on-campus housing. Partially done. This program was implemented with an amendment to SLOMC Chapter (H); however the ordinance amendment has not yet been included in the Zoning Regulations. The program to establish a campus housing-enrollment link has not been successful; enrollment increases since 2004 have outpaced the production of campus housing at Cal Poly. However Cal Poly has significantly expanded oncampus housing and helped offset off-campus student housing needs. not applicable not applicable Continue the program. Continue the program. Continue the program. 216

217 PROGRAM Table E-2 Progress in Achieving Housing Element Quantified Objectives, QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVE (Units) LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT 1 (Units) PERCENT ACHIEVED NEW CONSTRUCTION Very Low 1, Low Moderate Above Moderate 1, TOTAL 4, REHABILITATION Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate TOTAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate -- 1,081 TOTAL 150 1,602 CONSERVATION Notices of Violation 2 Very Low 150 Low 50 Moderate 25 Above Moderate -- TOTAL 225 PRESERVATION Units At-Risk TOTAL 4,552 2,288 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, The Housing Element quantified objectives overlay with the following planning period. The overlap period is from January 1, 2007 to July 1, Units built, rehabilitated, and conserved during this period are credited toward the planning period. 2 Conservation of housing and neighborhoods evaluated in terms of code enforcement actions for building condition or code compliance. Total units are not broken down by income category due to lack of available data. 217

218 Appendix F Five-Year Implementation Plan This appendix describes the programs that the City will implement during the timeframe of this Housing Element. The programs are designed to achieve goals and carry out policies listed in Chapter 3, and to address housing needs and issues described elsewhere in the document. Each program identifies specific actions to be accomplished, the responsible party, implementation timeframe, potential resources, and comments on expected results or methodology. The Five-Year Implementation Plan addresses a wide range of housing needs and represents a commitment by the City to address those needs in a responsible manner. The programs are intended to build upon one another; no single program is perceived as a solution to meeting the City s housing needs. The most effective approach is to combine a variety of programs or tools to provide incentives and resources, secure financial and technical assistance, and remove unnecessary impediments to housing to the maximum extent feasible. These are uncertain times for cities and counties. The economic resources necessary to implement some of the more ambitious housing programs, such as a First Time Homebuyer Program, are extremely limited. To the extent such funds are available, the City intends to use state and federal grants, loans, technical assistance or other forms of assistance in combination with local resources. The City intends to implement the programs in the timeframes outlined below, however these timeframes must remain somewhat flexible, allowing earlier or later implementation in response to changing housing needs, resources and opportunities. Appendix F has two parts: a) a list of all housing element programs by priority phasing, and b) a numerical listing of all programs including implementation details. In the second table, each housing goal below is followed by the housing programs to be implemented to help achieve that goal. The symbol n/a is applied to programs that can generally be implemented as part of regular City staffing and operations, without the need for outside funding. 218

219 a) Five-Year Implementation Plan - Program Priorities High Priority by July Prepare criteria to manage the Affordable Housing Fund to ensure that the fund serves as a sustainable resource for supporting affordable housing development 2.8 Establish permit streamlining procedures to expedite the processing of applications, construction permits, and water and sewer service priorities for affordable housing projects 2.13 Amend Affordable Housing Standards to consider incorporating HOA fees and a standard allowance for utilities in the calculation for affordable rents 6.20 Update the Community Design Guidelines and Chapter 2.48 of the Municipal Code to exempt the construction, or remodeling of up to 4 dwellings of up to 1200 square feet each from Architectural Review Commission review Medium-High Priority by January Evaluate the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements and their effect on City's ability to meet the proportions shown in the Regional House Needs Allocation 3.12 Amend the Inclusionary Housing Requirement to allow a reduced term of affordability for rehabilitated units 6.9 Amend the Zoning Regulations and Parking Access and Management Plan to allow for flexible parking for housing developments, especially in the Downtown Core 6.10 Provide incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core, including flexible density, use, height, or parking provisions Medium Priority by January Amend the Inclusionary Housing Requirement to provide more options for commercial development projects to meet the requirements of the ordinance 2.17 Evaluate and consider including a workforce level of affordability in the Affordable Housing Standards to provide more options for those making percent of the County's median income 2.18 Evaluate and consider increasing residential densities on appropriate sites for housing affordable to extremely low income households 3.8 Adopt an ordinance that discourages the removal or replacement of affordable housing On-going/no target date 1.4 Provide financial assistance to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income homeowners and renters for the rehabilitation of rental units, single-family homes or mobile homes 1.5 Expedite the removal of illegal or unsafe dwellings, to eliminate hazards and resolve chronic building safety problems through continued code enforcement 1.6 Enact a Rental Inspection Program to improve the condition of the City's housing stock 1.7 Support solutions to homelessness by funding programs such as the Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter and the Prado Day Center Solicit input on the zoning ordinance provisions for homeless shelters from service agencies that work with extremely-low income persons and the homeless 8.19 Update the Zoning Ordinance to identify a zone or zones to permit emergency shelters by right, consistent with SB2 and set emergency shelter standards Complete Orcutt Area Specific Plan and consider final City approval to annex the Orcutt specific planning area by December Amend the General Plan to designate the 46 acres associated with the former County General Hospital as a "Special Considerations zone, suitable for housing development 3.13 Establish a monitoring and early warning system to track affordable housing units at-risk of being converted to market rate housing 6.16 Develop multi-family housing design standards and make projects that meet these standards eligible for a streamlined level of review 1.8 Create an education campaign to inform owners of seismic hazards found in older houses and encourage seismic upgrades 2.7 Review City policies and standards to determine whether changes are possible that could assist the production of affordable housing or encourage preservation of existing housing 219

220 High Priority by July 2010 Medium-High Priority by January Update the Affordable Housing Incentives and Zoning Regulations to ensure density bonus incentives are consistent with State Law Medium Priority by January Community Development staff will prepare "property profiles" describing City-owned properties suitable for housing to facilitate public or private development 8.22 Update the Community Design Guidelines to include universal access standards 8.23 Consult with service agencies that work with the disabled and adopt a program addressing reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities 8.24 Consider adding an overlay zone to existing mobile home and trailer park sites to provide constructive notice that additional requirements (such as rent stabilization and a park conversion ordinance) apply 9.7 Evaluate solar siting and access regulations to determine if they provide assurance of long-term solar access for new or remodeled housing 9.8 Adopt Low-Impact Development (LID) Standards, including street and access way standards that reduce the amount of paving devoted to automobiles 9.9 Adopt an ordinance with requirements and incentives to increase the production of "green" housing units and projects and require use of sustainable and/or renewable materials, water, and energy technologies 6.11 Include sufficient R-3 and R-4 zoned land in specific plan expansion areas to accommodate housing for all income levels On-going/no target date 2.9 Pursue outside funding sources for the payment of City impact fees for dwellings that meet affordable housing standards to help housing remain affordable 2.10 To the extent possible, exempt dwellings that meet the moderate income Affordable Housing Standards from planning, building, and engineering development review and permit fees 2.11 Help coordinate public and private sector actions to encourage the development of housing that meets the City's housing needs 2.12 Assist with the issuance of bonds, tax credit financing, loan underwriting, or other financial tools to help develop or preserve affordable units through various programs 2.14 Work with the Housing Authority to provide on-going technical assistance and education to the community on the need to preserve at-risk units as well as the available tools 2.15 Provide technical assistance to the public, builders, design professionals and developers regarding design strategies to achieve affordable housing 3.9 Correct unsafe, unsanitary or illegal housing conditions, improve accessibility and energy efficiency and improve neighborhoods 3.10 Preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core (C-D zone) and the Downtown Planning Area by continuing the "no net housing loss" program 220

221 High Priority by July 2010 Medium-High Priority by January 2011 Medium Priority by January Consider General Plan amendments to rezone commercial, manufacturing, or public facility zoned areas for higher density, infill or mixed use housing where appropriate and where impact on Low-Density Residential areas is minimal 6.25 Evaluate and consider increasing the residential density allowed in development projects in the C-N, O, and C-D zoning districts to 24 units per acre in C-N and O zones, and 72 units 6.26 Evaluate how underlying lot patterns in the City's multi-family zones affect the City's ability to meet housing production policies 6.28 Encourage construction of Secondary Dwel- ling Units by revising the ordinance to include possible incentives 6.29 Evaluate and consider adopting subdivision and ordinance changes to support small lot subdivisions, ownership bungalow court development, and eliminate the one acre minimum lot area for PD overlay zoning 7.9 Identify specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends, and opportunities for improvements 8.13 Identify sites in expansion areas suitable for tenant-owned mobile home parks, cooperative or limitedequity housing, manufactured housing, selfhelp housing or other special needs housing Adopt measures ensuring the ability of legal, conforming non-residential uses to continue where new housing is proposed on adjacent or nearby sites. On-going/no target date 3.11 Identify residential properties eligible for local, State, or Federal historical listing and prepare guidelines and standards to help property owners repair, rehabilitate and improve properties in an appropriate historic manner 3.14 The City will work with other local organizations to help rehabilitate residential, commercial or industrial buildings to expand affordable rental housing opportunities 4.5 Review new development proposals for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the mixedincome policies 5.5 Review new development proposals for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the housing variety and tenure policies 6.8 Maintain the General Plan and Residential Growth Management Regulations (SLOMC 17.88) exemption for new housing in the Downtown Core (C-D zone), and new housing in other zones that is enforceably restricted for extremely-low, very low, low- and moderate income households, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Standards. In expansion areas, the overall number of units built must conform to the Cityapproved phasing plan 6.13 Continue to support the SLO County Housing Trust Fund's efforts to provide below-market financing and technical assistance 6.14 Prioritize City efforts to encourage growth towards infill development and designated expansion areas 6.15 Seek opportunities with other public agencies and utilities to utilize surplus land for housing and to convert vacant or underutilized buildings to housing 221

222 High Priority by July 2010 Medium-High Priority by January 2011 Medium Priority by January 2012 On-going/no target date 6.18 Financially assist in the development of affordable housing using State, Federal, or local funds 6.19 Actively seek new revenue sources and financing mechanisms to assist affordable housing development and firsttime home buyer programs 6.21 Assist in the production of long-term affordable housing by identifying vacant or underutilized City-owned property suitable for housing 6.27 The City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate 7.8 Implement a variety of strategies to ensure residents are aware of and able to participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhood 7.10 Help fund neighborhood improvements to improve aesthetics, safety, and accessibility through the installment of sidewalks, traffic calming devices, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and street lighting 7.11 Continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies, including parking districts 8.11 As funding allows, support local and regional solutions to meeting the needs of the homeless and continue to support, jointly with other agencies, shelters for the homeless Continue the mobile home rent stabilization program 8.14 Advocate developing more housing and refurbishing campus housing at Cal Poly University 8.15 Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups 8.16 Jointly develop and adopt a student housing plan and "good neighbor program" with Cal Poly, Cuesta College and City residents 222

223 High Priority by July 2010 Medium-High Priority by January 2011 Medium Priority by January 2012 On-going/no target date 8.17 Provide public educational info at the Community Development Department public counter on universal design concepts in new construction 8.20 Continue to allow the establishment of transitional and supportive housing that functions as residential uses in residential zones 8.21 Identify properties that can be acquired and converted to affordable permanent housing and supportive housing 9.6 Educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies on energy conservation issues 9.10 Promote building materials reuse and recycling in site development and residential construction, including flexible standards for use of salvaged, recycled, and green building materials. To help accomplish this, the City will implement a construction & demolition debris recycling program (as described in Chapter 8.05 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code) 10.3 Work with the County of San Luis Obispo to mitigate housing impacts on the City due to significant expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the City 10.4 Encourage residential developers to promote their projects within the San Luis Obispo housing market area first 10.5 Advocate the establishment of a link between enrollment and the expansion of campus housing programs at Cal Poly University 10.6 Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for State legislation that would provide funding to help Cal poly University provide adequate on-campus housing and allow greater flexibility for State universities and community colleges to enter into publicprivate partnerships to construct student housing 223

224 b) Program Implementation Details Safety Program Description Provide financial assistance to homeowners and renters for the rehabilitation of rental units, single-family homes or mobile homes. Expedite the removal of illegal or unsafe dwellings through continued code enforcement Responsible Agency Housing Programs Manager Police Department & Code Enforcement Priority and Time frame 3- On-going Potential Resources Housing Programs Manager 3 - On-going n/a 1.6 Enact a Rental Inspection Program to improve the condition of the City's housing stock Administration & Housing Programs Manager 3 - On-going Inspection fees paid by property owner 1.7 Support solutions to homelessness by funding programs such as the SLO Homeless Shelter and Prado Day Center Urban County 3 - On-going Urban County ESG, CDBG and General Funds 1.8 Create an education campaign to inform owners of seismic hazards found in older houses and encourage seismic upgrades. Building Division, Community Development 3 - On-going n/a Affordability Program 2.5 Description Amend the Inclusionary Housing Requirement to provide more options for commercial development projects to meet the requirements of the ordinance Responsible Agency Community Development Department Priority/ Time frame 2 - by January 2012 Potential Resources n/a 2.6 Prepare criteria to manage the Affordable Housing Fund to ensure that the fund serves as a sustainable resource for supporting affordable housing development Housing Programs Manager 1 - by July 2010 Inclusionary Housing Program 2.7 Review City policies and standards to determine whether changes are possible that could assist the production of affordable housing or encourage preservation of existing housing. Community Development Department 3 - On-going n/a 2.8 Establish permit streamlining procedures to expedite the processing of applications, construction permits, and water and sewer service priorities for affordable housing projects. Community Development and Utilities Departments 1- by July 2010 n/a 224

225 2.9 Pursue outside funding sources for the payment of City impact fees for dwellings that meet affordable housing standards to help housing remain affordable. Housing Programs Manager 3 - On-going City Affordable Housing Funds, Urban County CDBG and HOME funds 2.10 To the extent possible, exempt dwellings that meet the moderate income Affordable Housing Standards from planning, building, and engineering development review and permit fees Housing Programs Manager 3 - On-going n/a 2.11 Help coordinate public and private sector actions to encourage the development of housing that meets the City's housing needs Housing Programs Manager 3 - On-going n/a 2.12 Assist with the issuance of bonds, tax credit financing, loan underwriting, or other financial tools to help develop or preserve affordable units through various programs Community Development & Finance Departments 3 - On-going State and Federal funding programs, Cal HFA, Mortgage Revenue Bonds 2.13 Amend Affordable Housing Standards to consider incorporating HOA fees and a standard allowance for utilities in the calculation for affordable rents. Housing Programs Manager 1 - by July 2010 n/a 2.14 Work with the Housing Authority to provide on-going technical assistance and education to the community on the need to preserve at-risk units as well as the available tools Housing Programs Manager 3 - On-going CDBG Funds 2.15 Provide technical assistance to the public, builders, design professionals and developers regarding design strategies to achieve affordable housing Housing Programs Manager 3 - On-going n/a 2.16 Evaluate the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements and their effect on City's ability to meet the proportions shown in the Regional House Needs Allocation Community Development Department 1 - by January 2011 n/a 2.17 Evaluate and consider including a workforce level of affordability in the Affordable Housing Standards to provide more options for those making percent of the County's median income Community Development Department 2 - by January 2012 n/a 2.18 Evaluate and consider increasing residential densities on appropriate sites for housing affordable to extremely low income households. Community Development Department 2 - by January 2012 n/a 225

226 Housing Conservation Program Description Adopt an ordinance that discourages the removal or replacement of affordable housing Correct unsafe, unsanitary or illegal housing conditions, improve accessibility and energy efficiency and improve neighborhoods Preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core (C-D zone) and the Downtown Planning Area by continuing the "no net housing loss" program Identify residential properties eligible for local, State, or Federal historical listing and prepare guidelines and standards to help property owners repair, rehabilitate and improve properties in an appropriate historic manner Amend the Inclusionary Housing Requirement to allow a reduced term of affordability for rehabilitated units Establish a monitoring and early warning system to track affordable housing units atrisk of being converted to market rate housing The City will work with other local organizations to help rehabilitate residential, commercial or industrial buildings to expand affordable rental housing opportunities Mixed-Income Housing Program 4.5 Description Review new development proposals for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the mixed-income policies Responsible Agency Community Development Department Community Development, Code Enforcement Community & Economic Development Departments Cultural Heritage Committee, Community Development Department Housing Programs Manager Housing Programs Manager Housing Programs Manager Responsible Agency Community Development Director, Planning Commission, City Council Priority/ Time frame 2 - by January 2012 Potential Resources n/a 3 - On-going n/a 3 - On-going n/a 3 - On-going 1 - by January by January On-going Priority/ Time frame Mills Act program, CLG Program (SHPO), City General Fund n/a n/a CDBG and Affordable Housing Fund Potential Resources 3 - On-going n/a 226

227 Housing Variety and Tenure Program 5.5 Description Review new development proposals for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the housing variety and tenure policies Responsible Agency Community Development Director, Planning Commission, City Council Priority/ Time frame Potential Resources 3 - On-going n/a Housing Production Program Description Maintain the General Plan and Residential Growth Management Regulations (SLOMC 17.88) exemption for new housing in the Downtown Core (C-D zone), and new housing in other zones that is enforceably restricted for extremely-low, very low, low- and moderate income households, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Standards. In expansion areas, the overall number of units built must conform to the City-approved phasing plan. Amend the Zoning Regulations and Parking Access and Management Plan to allow for flexible parking for housing developments, especially in the Downtown Core Provide incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core, including flexible density, use, height, or parking provisions Specific Plans for the Orcutt Expansion Area and any new expansion areas shall include R-3 and R-4 zoned land to provide affordable housing Consider General Plan amendments to rezone commercial, manufacturing, or public facility zoned areas for higher density Continue to support the SLO County Housing Trust Fund's efforts to provide below-market financing and technical assistance Responsible Agency Community Development Director, Planning Commission, City Council Community Development Department Community Development Department Community Development Department Community Development Director, Planning Commission, City Council Housing Programs Manager Priority/ Time frame Potential Resources 3 - On-going n/a 1 - by January by January Prior to adoption of Specific Plans 2 - by July 2012 or coinciding with LUE update 3 - On-going n/a n/a n/a n/a City Affordable Housing Funds 227

228 Prioritize City efforts to encourage growth towards infill development and designated expansion areas Seek opportunities with other public agencies and utilities to utilize surplus land for housing and to convert vacant or underutilized buildings to housing. Develop multi-family housing design standards and make projects that meet these standards eligible for a streamlined level of review Complete Orcutt Area Specific Plan and consider final City approval to annex the Orcutt specific planning area by December Financially assist in the development of affordable housing using State, Federal, or local funds Actively seek new revenue sources and financing mechanisms to assist affordable housing development and first-time home buyer programs Update the Community Design Guidelines and Chapter 2.48 of the Municipal Code to exempt the construction, or remodeling of up to 4 dwellings of up to 1200 square feet each from Architectural Review Commission review Assist in the production of long-term affordable housing by identifying vacant or underutilized City-owned property suitable for housing Housing Programs Manager, Planning Commission, City Council Housing Programs Manager Community Development Department, Architectural Review & Planning Commission Community Development Department Housing Programs Manager Housing Programs Manager Community Development Department, Architectural Review Commission & City Council Housing Programs Manager 3 - On-going n/a 3 - On-going 2 - by January by January On-going 3 - On-going 1 - by July On-going CDBG, City Affordable Housing Fund, tax credits n/a n/a CDBG, City Affordable Housing Fund, HOME Funds CDBG, City Affordable Housing Fund n/a CDBG, City Affordable Housing Funds Community Development staff will prepare "property profiles" describing City-owned properties suitable for housing to facilitate public or private development Amend the General Plan to designate the 46 acres associated with the former County General Hospital as a "special Design Area", suitable for housing development Update the Affordable Housing Incentives and Zoning Regulations to ensure density bonus incentives are consistent with State Law Community Development Department Community Development Department, Planning Commission Community Development Department 2 - by January by January by January 2011 n/a n/a n/a 228

229 Evaluate and consider increasing the residential density allowed in development projects in the Neighborhood Commercial (C-N), Office (O), and Downtown Commercial (C-D) zoning districts to 24 units per acre in C-N and O zones, and 72 units per acre in the C-D zone. Evaluate how underlying lot patterns in the City's multi-family zones affect the City's ability to meet housing production policies The City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. Encourage the construction of Secondary Dwelling Units by revising the ordinance to include possible incentives Evaluate and consider adopting subdivision and ordinance changes to support small lot subdivisions, ownership bungalow court development, and eliminate the one acre minimum lot area for PD overlay zoning. Neighborhood Quality Program Description Implement a variety of strategies to ensure residents are aware of and able to participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhood Identify specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends, and opportunities for improvements. Help fund neighborhood improvements to improve aesthetics, safety, and accessibility through the installment of sidewalks, traffic calming devices, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and street lighting Continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies, including parking districts Community Development Department, Planning Commission Community Development Department, Planning Commission Community Development Department, Planning Commission Community Development Department Community Development Department, Planning Commission Responsible Agency Community Development Director & Neighborhood Services Manager Neighborhood Services Manager Neighborhood Services Manager Public Works Department, Parking manager 2 - by July 2012 or coinciding with LUE update 2 - by July 2012 or coinciding with LUE update n/a n/a 3 - On-going n/a 2 - by July 2012 or coinciding with LUE update 2 - by July 2012 or coinciding with LUE update Priority/ Time frame n/a n/a Potential Resources 3 - On-going n/a 2 - by July 2012 or coinciding with LUE update n/a 3 - On-going n/a 3 - On-going n/a 229

230 Special Housing Needs Program Description As funding allows, support local and regional solutions to meeting the needs of the homeless and continue to support, jointly with other agencies, shelters for the homeless Continue the mobile home rent stabilization program Identify sites in specified expansion areas suitable for tenant-owned mobile-home parks, cooperative or limited equity housing, or other types of housing that meet special needs Advocate developing more housing and refurbishing campus housing at Cal Poly University Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of oncampus fraternity/sorority living groups Jointly develop and adopt a student housing plan and "good neighbor program" with Cal Poly, Cuesta College and City residents Provide public educational information at the Community Development Department public counter on universal design concepts in new construction Solicit input on the zoning ordinance provisions for homeless shelters from service agencies that work with extremelylow income persons and the homeless Update the Zoning Ordinance to identify a zone or zones to permit emergency shelters by right, consistent with SB2 Continue to allow the establishment of transitional and supportive housing that functions as residential uses in residential zones Identify properties that can be acquired and converted to affordable permanent housing and supportive housing Update the Community Design Guidelines to include universal access standards Responsible Agency Housing Programs Manager Priority/ Time frame 3 - On-going Potential Resources CDBG, City Affordable Housing Fund, Prop 46 Funds City Attorney 3 - On-going n/a Community Development Department City Administration Department City Administration Department Police Department, Neighborhood Services Manager Community Development Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Community Development Department, Planning Commission Housing Programs Manager Community Development Department 1- Prior to adoption of Specific Plans n/a 3 - On-going n/a 3 - On-going n/a 3 - On-going n/a 3 - On-going n/a 1 - by July by July 2010 n/a n/a 3 - On-going n/a 3 - On-going n/a 2 - by January 2012 n/a 230

231 Consult with service agencies that work with the disabled and adopt a program addressing reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities Consider adding an overlay zone to existing mobile home and trailer park sites to provide constructive notice that additional requirements (such as rent stabilization and a park conversion ordinance) apply 231 Community Development Department Community Development Department 2 - by January by January 2012 Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Design Program Description Educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies on energy conservation issues Evaluate solar siting and access regulations to determine if they provide assurance of long-term solar access for new or remodeled housing Adopt Low-Impact Development (LID) Standards, including street and access way standards that reduce the amount of paving devoted to automobiles Adopt an ordinance with requirements and incentives to increase the production of "green" housing units and projects and require use of sustainable and/or renewable materials, water, and energy technologies Promote building materials reuse and recycling in site development and residential construction, including flexible standards for use of salvaged, recycled, and green building materials. To help accomplish this, the City will implement a construction and demolition debris recycling program (as described in Chapter 8.05 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code). Local Preference Program 10.3 Description Work with the County of San Luis Obispo to mitigate housing impacts on the City due to significant expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the City Responsible Agency Community Development & Utilities Departments Community Development Department Community Development & Public Works Departments, Planning Commission Community Development Department, Building and Planning staff Community Development Department, Building and Planning staff Responsible Agency Community Development Department Priority/ Time frame 3 - On-going 2 - by January by January by January On-going n/a Priority/ Time frame n/a n/a Potential Resources Utility Companies n/a n/a n/a Potential Resources 3 - On-going n/a

232 Suitability` Program 11.3 Encourage residential developers to promote their projects within the San Luis Obispo housing market area first. Advocate the establishment of a link between enrollment and the expansion of campus housing programs at Cal Poly University and Cuesta College Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for State legislation that would provide funding to help Cal poly University and Cuesta College provide adequate oncampus housing and allow greater flexibility for State universities and community colleges to enter into publicprivate partnerships to construct student housing Description The City will adopt measures ensuring the ability of legal, conforming non-residential uses to continue where new housing is proposed on adjacent or nearby sites Community Development Department City Administration Department City Administration Department Responsible Agency Community Development Department 3 - On-going n/a 3 - On-going n/a 3 - On-going n/a Priority/ Time frame done Potential Resources n/a 232

233 Appendix G Housing Task Force Recommendations 2009 Preamble to the Housing Task Force Recommendations Completed in 2003 after extensive community meetings and deliberations, the 17-member Housing Task Force s recommendations provided the framework for many of the 2004 Housing Element s policies and programs. The Task Force s key findings and recommendations are as relevant in 2009 as they were in 2003, as housing needs, housing costs, fiscal health and environmental issues continue to be key community issues. The 2009 Housing Element carries forward many of the same policies and programs to address on-going housing issues. Consequently, the input from these distinguished citizens and from the community at large continues to guide San Luis Obispo s housing policies and programs. The City of San Luis Obispo Housing Element Update Task Force Report to the City Planning Commission Final Draft October 15, 2003 Housing Element Update Task Force Sam Blakeslee Linda Dalton Stephen B. Barasch Andrew Carter Gabe Garcia Cydney Holcomb Kent MacDonald George Moylan Anita M. Robinson Sandra Sarrouf Richard Schmidt Chris Skiff Scott Smith Cuesta College (Co-Chair) Cal Poly (Co-Chair) SLO Property Owner s Association Renter/low-income household/family Renter/low-income household/family Residents for Quality Neighborhoods Downtown resident San Luis Obispo Housing Authority Banker/housing lender ECOSLO Sierra Club Housing developer/builder Peoples Self-Help Housing Corporation 233

234 Elizabeth 'Biz' Steinberg Tom Swem Patricia Wilmore James Caruso Economic Opportunity Commission Downtown Association SLO Chamber of Commerce Planning Commission (Non-Voting) Community Development Department John Mandeville, Director Michael Draze, Deputy Director Jeff Hook, Project Planner The Housing Element Update Task Force On January 7, 2003, the City Council established the Housing Element Update Task Force and directed staff to work with the Task Force and the Planning Commission to prepare a housing element that could hopefully achieve state certification consistent with City General Plan goals. City Council Resolution No establishing the Housing Element Update Task Force set out the following: Goals of the Council: To update the General Plan Housing Element with the goals of expanding housing opportunities for very-low, low, and moderate income households, preserving and enhancing residential neighborhoods, and complying with state laws, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Duties of the Task Force: 1. Review and comment on existing housing policies and programs in an effort to expand housing opportunities for very-low, low and moderate income households. 2. Recommend new housing goals, policies or programs to address community housing needs. 3. Review the Draft Housing Element Update. 4. Other duties as assigned by the City Council. The Housing Element Update Task Force held eighteen meetings over a period of seven months, reviewing information presented by staff, the public, individual members of the Task Force, and issue reports by five subcommittees comprised of Task Force members. The information reviewed ranged from the goals, policies, and programs in the 1994 Housing Element to concerns over impacts to existing residential neighborhoods and new ways to encourage production of more affordable housing by the public and private housing providers. Although there were clearly differences of opinion about the relative priority of issues and the most effective approaches to solving identified problems, Task Force members reached consensus on most of the issues. This report focuses on a list of specific issues the Task Force members developed early in their meetings. The report is organized into six sections based on major topics the Task Force dealt 234

235 with, plus an appendix that includes comments on issues where at least two of the Task Force members disagreed with the prevailing opinion of the group. In the main body of the report, all issues that reflect consensus of the group are simply stated. Those where the group did not agree are indicated by the vote in brackets following the statement; {for, against, abstain}. Some issues remain unresolved and are so noted. In addition, the Task Force provided specific suggestions for refining some of the broad goals that frame the housing element. These include the following: Affordability There was a consensus on need to update the definition. Housing Conservation Members raised concerns regarding the extent to which this goals involves conserving the number of units or the units themselves. Energy and Water Conservation There was a consensus to incorporate sustainable design into the goal. Demand Management Members suggested more positive wording, such as maximize opportunity for those who live and work in the City or Balance supply and demand Suitability There was a consensus to add a new goal to encourage innovative subdivision and housing design. I. URBAN FORM AND CONTEXT Statement of Principles The Task Force believes that new housing development should occur within the existing urban reserve line of San Luis Obispo. The City should continue policies and programs that discourage urban sprawl and its concomitant woes, particularly traffic. The City should continue policies and programs that promote a compact urban form. {10-3} In order to accommodate residential growth, the Task Force believes the City should focus as much on infill and densification within current City limits as it does on annexation within the urban reserve line. {10-3} Infill represents the building of housing on existing vacant lots within the City. Residential densification can be accomplished in various ways, but it should be targeted to specific areas downtown, near Cal Poly, near major commercial areas, and along major transportation routes. {10-3} General Recommendations The Task Force recommends adopting multiple policies to encourage residential growth in ways consistent with the above principles. These measures include the following: 1) Intensify downtown residential development. 2) Encourage the development of additional housing on-campus and near campus. 3) Encourage the development of additional housing near major commercial areas. 4) Encourage the development of additional housing along major transportation routes. 235

236 5) Discourage development of higher-density housing in other locations than mentioned above. {7-6} 6) Encourage mixed residential and commercial development. a) Consider rezoning specific undeveloped commercial property to residential. b) Encourage live/work and live-near-work housing. c) Examine all regulations that prevent building to currently allowed residential densities. d) Consider upzoning specific lower-density residential property to higher-density in appropriate areas downtown, near Cal Poly, near major commercial areas, and along major transportation routes. {10-3} Specific Recommendations: The Task Force recommends implementing the following measures in conjunction with the above principles and recommendations: 1) Adopt flexible zoning standards in targeted areas in return for the provision of additional affordable housing units. These standards might utilize Floor Area Ratios for a given site, reduced lot sizes, reduced setback requirements, increased building heights, increased allowable land area coverage, the use of least restrictive standards for mixed use developments, etc. {10-3} 2) Relax open space requirements in the expansion areas in return for the provision of additional affordable housing units if the open space protected is not specifically tied to geographic features like hillsides, wetlands, and watercourses. {10-3} II. HOUSING DESIGN, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND LIVABILITY Statement of Principles The Task Force believes that any new housing should maintain a good fit with its surroundings and provide a pleasant and attractive living environment for residents. Increased housing development and density should not undermine the appealing characteristics of the existing urban fabric nor require reduced standards of housing design for individual developments. The City s existing Community Design Guidelines provide a good start for describing the standards that can ensure quality housing and neighborhoods. However, these guidelines need to be clarified and expanded in order to adapt to new, denser forms of housing. General Recommendations: The Task Force recommends the following: 1) Ensure that higher-density housing maintain high standards for unit design, privacy, security, types of on-site amenities, and the nature of public and private open space. 2) Ensure that higher-density housing is compatible with adjacent development, particularly established residential neighborhoods. Specific Recommendations: The Task Force recommends studying the implementation of the following specific initiatives or programs: 1) New and/or revised Community Design Guidelines should address the amount, usability, nature, and location of both public and private open spaces within housing developments. 236

237 2) New and/or revised Community Design Guidelines should address the nature of driveways and parking lots within housing projects, specifically the tunnel effect created by long, parallel lines of units which face each other across narrow driveways, and the amount of separation of driveways and parking lots from pedestrian walkways, unit entrances, and private living spaces. 3) New and/or revised Community Design Guidelines should ensure adequate standards for setbacks and height limits for developments located in existing neighborhoods. 4) Downtown Residential Development Standards should ensure that the massing, scale and architectural character of new developments create an attractive living environment. {10-3} 5) The above standards of livability should be flexible enough to allow creative design approaches in special circumstances, e.g., in developing mixed-use developments or in residential housing in the downtown. {12-1} Issue 1: Adjust Parking Requirements to Meet Needs of the Development Rather than the Current Residential Parking Standards for each Residential Zone 1) Adopt flexible parking standards in targeted areas for specific developments. These standards might include lowering the number of required parking spaces in return for live/work or live-near-work housing, the payment of parking in-lieu fees, the payment of mass transit in-lieu fees, the provision of alternative transportation for residents, restrictions on the number of cars residents may own, off-site parking facilities (public or private), shared parking facilities (on-site or adjacent, commercial or residential), the provision of additional affordable housing units, etc. a) Allow lower parking requirements, including the possibility of zero parking, for development in the downtown core and its adjacent neighborhoods; along major transportation routes; near existing shopping districts; and within higher-density residential areas near Cal Poly. {12-1} b) Allow lower parking requirements, including the possibility of zero parking, for developments that provide a range of alternative parking or transportation options for residents. Such options would include, but are not limited to, agreements to use parking lots on adjacent or nearby properties (including live-near-work housing), agreements to use City-owned parking lots at night, and providing residents with alternative-energy vehicles. {12-1} c) Mitigate the impact of developments through reduced parking requirements, especially in established R1 and R2 neighborhoods, by expanding the neighborhood parking permit program, by enforcing existing regulations regarding street parking, and by decreasing the amount of allowable paving [now 50% of the front yard] for parking areas in residential neighborhoods. {12-1} d) The program of parking reduction should be implemented on a limited, experimental basis in order to test the impact and efficacy of the proposed parking changes. 2) New and revised Community Design Guidelines and Parking Standards should address the amount of parking required for the types and locations of developments that are consistent with the City s plan for compact urban form. {12-1} 237

238 Issue 2: Explore Allowable Densities in Existing Residential Zones and Underlying Criteria General Recommendation: Allow greater housing densities and the potential mix of housing types to encourage a broader range of affordable housing options. Specific Recommendations: 1) Establish reasonable, equitable, and predictable density bonuses based on predesignated areas in the City, dwelling form, occupancy type, use of mixed-use development, and the percentage of affordable units in a development. {12-1} 2) Establish smaller minimum conforming lot area requirements in residential zones where appropriate. {10-2-1} 3) Create meaningful density incentives based on the percentage of affordable housing created in any given development. {12-1} 4) Create higher allowable residential density for Mixed Use Developments. Issue 3: Require that Livability Standards Be Retained Through Good Design When Using Higher Density Issue 4: Encourage Live-Near Work with Allowed Reduction in Parking Issue 5: Encourage More Mixed Use Types of Development Related Issues Issue 6: Retain Integrity of Open Space on Each Lot Issue 7: Discuss When We Preserve Existing Structures and When We Don t III. PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND CONSERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK Statement of Principles: The Task Force believes that our neighborhoods are the basic building blocks that make up the larger community of San Luis Obispo. They are the places where we live, recreate and sometimes work. They constitute the largest use of land in the City and the homes within oftentimes represent the largest single investment residents will ever make. San Luis Obispo s neighborhoods are diverse. Neighborhoods downtown and in the northern part of the City are older; these areas face distinctly different challenges than their counterparts in the newer, southern part of the City. The Task Force believes that City policies should reflect this diversity of needs by (1) defining types of existing neighborhoods and, on the basis of that definition, provide direction to protect, enhance, and/or revitalize them; and (2) supporting the development of new residential areas as well-functioning neighborhoods. General Recommendations: The Task Force recommends the following objectives in regard to preservation and enhancement of existing residential neighborhoods. 238

239 1) Protect the peace and quiet of single-family neighborhoods. 2) Clarify that neighborhood integrity applies to more than the R1 areas. Specific Recommendations: The Task Force recommends implementing the following specific initiatives or programs to preserve and enhance the City s existing residential neighborhoods and to conserve the City s existing housing stock. 1) Preserve and enhance the quality, character and integrity of established residential neighborhoods. Density; scale; lot size, configuration, and coverage; building size and placement; set backs and usable open space help to define the character of established neighborhoods. 2) New development or redevelopment within an established residential neighborhood shall be consistent with the predominant quality, character and scale of that neighborhood. 3) Ensure that edges of new neighborhoods transition with older residential neighborhoods. 4) Implement a wide variety of strategies to ensure that the residents are educated as to and involved in planning decisions involving their neighborhoods, early in the process. {9-1} 5) Protect the low-density character and private open space associated with established R-1 neighborhoods. 6) Improve the condition of the City s existing housing by: ensuring strict compliance with the Uniform Building Code; enforcing existing Housing and Property Maintenance standards; enacting a Rental Inspection Program; and promoting conservation and rehabilitation. {6-4} 7) Urge Cal Poly and Cuesta College to take an active role in working with city government and community organizations to create a positive environment around the campus by: a) Addressing what density of students is appropriate in surrounding neighborhoods; b) Promoting homeownership in its surrounding low density neighborhoods for university employees and others; c) Encouraging and participating in revitalization of degraded neighborhoods. Additional thoughts by subcommittee: 1) The Housing Element should acknowledge the importance of Universal or Accessible Design. Although Universal Design standards address the needs of people with disabilities, it is a comprehensive concept that can benefit all users. Universal design features increase the usability of the home by people of all ages, sizes, and abilities and enhance the ability of all residents to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. Many times, it's the home itself that causes people to leave - it just isn't "user friendly. 2) Production of a variety of appropriate housing types for special needs populations should be encouraged, including single room occupancy (SRO), group homes and integrated community apartment living. 3) Housing constructed with public subsidies (or incentives) should include units that are fully handicapped accessible. Unresolved Issues: 239

240 Issue 1: Allow More Imaginative Physical Forms of Housing to Encourage Affordability Related Issues Issue 2: Explore Housing on Top of Large Buildings IV. SUSTAINABLE HOUSING, SITE, AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN Statement of Principles: The city should promote residential design sustainable at the lifecycle ( cradle-to-grave ) level, and as benign as possible in its environmental impacts. Sustainable residential design principles should be applied with consistency to the individual dwelling, the site, and at the neighborhood level. Individual buildings and new neighborhoods should be viewed in a long-term perspective rather than as commodities to build as quickly and cheaply as possible, with little thought to long-term impacts. General Recommendations: 1) As part of its overall commitment to quality of life for its residents and to maintaining environmental quality, the city should encourage housing design that s resource-conserving, healthful, economical to live in, environmentally benign, and recyclable when demolished. This can be accomplished through practices like the following: {8-1 for this entire section} a) Maximize use of renewable, recycled-content, and recycled materials, and minimize high-embodied energy materials and high environmental impact materials. b) Incorporate renewable energy features including passive solar design, solar hot water, solar power, and natural ventilation and cooling. c) Minimize thermal island effects through reduction of heat-absorbing pavement, and increased tree shading. d) Avoid building materials that may contribute to health problems, such as outgassing and glass fiber contamination of indoor air. e) Design for quiet, indoors and out, for both the mental and physical health of residents. f) Design dwellings economical to live in because of reduced utility bills, low cost maintenance and operation, and improved occupant health. g) Use construction materials and methods that maximize the recyclability of a building s parts. h) Educate public, staff, and builders to the advantages and approaches to sustainable design, and thereby develop consumer demand for sustainable housing. i) Consider adopting a sustainable development rating system, such as the LEED program. 2) Promote community level residential design. Site design, subdivision design, and neighborhood design need to be coordinated to make residential sustainability work. Some ways to do this include: {8-1 for this entire section} a) Design subdivisions to maximize solar access for each dwelling. b) Design sites so residents have usable outdoor space with access to both sun and shade. c) Adopt lot coverage standards that reduce the amount of land surface that may be covered with impermeable materials. (Impermeable surfaces include both the area covered by a building and the area covered by hard-surfaced paving.) d) Adopt street and access way standards that reduce the amount of impermeable surface devoted to vehicular use. 240

241 e) Use neighborhood retention basins to purify street runoff prior to its entering creeks. (Such basins should be visual and functional amenities in the dry season, not fenced-off barren pits.) f) Encourage cluster development with dwellings grouped around considerable amounts of shared open space in return for smaller individual lots. g) Separate neighborhoods of all densities from heavily trafficked streets and highways with landscaped buffers. 3) In the existing core city, sustainability means maintaining physical neighborhood qualities we already have. Some ways to do this include: a) Resisting the urge to overbuild areas like Old Town, thereby maintaining a close-in living environment appealing to people who can afford to live outside the city and commute back. b) Encourage maintenance and rehabilitation of existing historic housing stock. Issue 1: Create a sizeable body of affordable housing that is as close to permanent as feasible Statement of Principles: The private sector developers are not able to reach the lowest income households and this group will continue to rely mostly on public and private non-profit housing organizations. In addition, it s difficult to maintain a sizeable body of privately developed affordable housing because significant portions of that housing stock ultimately become available to the general public at market rates. Therefore it is desirable to create affordable housing units that remain affordable for as long as the law allows. Encourage community support of affordable housing and special needs housing by combating misconceptions regarding both publicly and privately developed affordable and special needs housing through active community outreach and education. General Recommendations: 1) Create affordable rental housing that stays affordable for at least 55 years, whenever that is possible (see federal tax credit provisions). 2) The city should seek to replicate the success of existing 55-year affordable housing developments such as those that were established at Marvin Gardens, Brizzolara, and Carmel. 3) Assist in the establishment of long-term affordable housing units by identifying city-owned properties that could be used for that purpose and owned by the city in perpetuity. 4) The city should review its existing inventory of city-owned under-developed properties and dedicate some portion of those properties to address affordable housing issues. For example, one might envision a mixed-use downtown parking structure that would incorporate an element of onsite housing. The mixed-use parking structure could leverage off the cityowned land and the availability of parking enterprise funds to finance the underlying parking structure. 5) Encourage local government to acquire land for current or future affordable housing development, either through direct market acquisition or donation by developers as an inlieu option. 241

242 6) Ensure long-term affordability of ownership housing through shared equity. {8-1} Issue 2: Student Housing Statement of Principles: Thousands of students attending Cal Poly and Cuesta College live in or near San Luis Obispo. Their presence has had a number of positive and negative impacts to the community. Many students occupy single-family homes, particularly in neighborhoods near Cal Poly, and this has produced some negative impacts to these neighborhoods. The city s housing element needs to provide for the protection of existing neighborhoods and the availability of decent and affordable housing for students. General Recommendations: 1) Increase the supply of dedicated on campus and off campus student housing at a rate that is at least commensurate with the increase in out-of-area enrollment. Such housing, whether it is on-campus or off-campus, should include management and transportation services appropriate for student living. 2) Reduce the incidence of unsafe and non-conforming conversions that create student rentals out of garages, closets, and attics. 3) Urge Cal Poly and Cuesta to maximize their supply of student housing on campus to avoid displacement of existing residents or a loss of existing rental housing resources available to other City residents. Specific Recommendations: 1) Urge Cal Poly and Cuesta College to construct additional on-campus housing facilities. This encouragement may include assistance with issues related to state and federal funding (grants), water and sewer, circulation, and land use issues. 2) Act as a facilitator to encourage cooperative housing arrangements and partnerships that include the City, Cal Poly, and Cuesta College. 3) Assist Cal Poly and Cuesta College in their efforts to provide supervised off-campus housing facilities. This may entail a willingness to rezone parcels, reroute public transportation services, or expand circulation capacity in particular areas. {7-2} 4) Encourage off-campus students to live throughout the community rather than in large, concentrated, student-only enclaves. {8-1} 5) Although it is important to manage the impact of student housing on residential neighborhoods it is essential to avoid concentrating large numbers of students in unsupervised settings thereby creating the potential for Isla Vista-like setting somewhere in or near San Luis Obispo. 6) Locate off-campus student housing near major transportation corridors or in close proximity to the campuses to reduce circulation impacts. 7) Increase enforcement of existing city ordinances that prevent unsafe and illegal conversions. Such conversions can make competing on-campus and off-campus housing developments appear less affordable than their illegal counterparts. These units increase the risk of higher vacancy rates at student housing developments, which in turn reduces the likelihood of new units being built in the future. 242

243 8) Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for changes in State legislation that would: (1) provide funds for public higher education institutions to provide adequate on campus housing for students; and (2) allow more flexibility to individual institutions to engage in publicprivate partnerships to construct new student housing. Issue 3: Owner Occupied Mobile/Manufactured Home Lots Statement of Principles: Owner occupied mobile/manufactured home lots provide an important supply of entry-level affordable homes. Many families now own their own single-family home because they first purchased a smaller entry-level dwelling such as a condominium, a duplex, or a townhouse. Some of the most affordable entry-level dwellings are mobile/manufactured homes. Unfortunately, they are in exceedingly short supply. General Recommendations: Dedicate a certain portion of new housing in expansion areas for owner-occupied manufactured home lots. Specific Recommendations: 1) Encourage developers to create owner-occupied manufactured home parks with amenities such as greenbelts, recreation facilities, and shopping services within a master planned community setting. Such parks could be specifically designed to help address the needs of those with mobility and transportation limitations. 2) Establish lot sizes, setback, and parking guidelines that allow for relatively dense placement of manufactured homes within the master planned community. 3) Locate manufactured home parks near public transit facilities or provide public transportation services to the manufactured home parks to minimize the need for residents to own automobiles. Issue 4: Special Needs Populations Statement of Principles: Certain special-needs populations may face both economic and non-economic challenges that make housing particularly difficult to acquire. Such populations could be assisted in obtaining housing if funds were dedicated for that purpose. Special Needs Populations include disabled persons, elderly persons, large household, farm workers, single-parent families, homeless persons, students, and shared households. General Recommendations: 1) Encourage close cooperation between the city and the county to address affordable housing needs. 2) Encourage the County-Wide Housing Trust Fund to allocate a fixed percentage of the funds raised to be expended for Special Need Populations. 3) Better define which populations qualify for special need assistance. Specific Recommendations: 243

244 1) Minimize use of affordable housing dollars for bureaucracies and staff positions, particularly when staffing and administrative needs could be met by coordinating with the County or with existing non-profits. 2) Certain Special Need Populations should be served through coordinated assistance from both the city and county. 3) Utilize existing unoccupied hotel buildings in downtown San Luis Obispo for appropriate single room occupancy (SRO) and transitional housing. 4) Encourage co-housing as a housing alternative as has been done in Oceano and Paso Robles. 5) Increase multi-family rental housing availability. Issue 5: Improve education on the use of Universal Design Establish workshops for designers, architects, and the public to provide education on understanding the advantages of universal design and how this benefits people of all abilities through the lifespan of the occupants and of the building. Issue 6: Protect housing affordability for low income occupants by limiting city utility increases consistent with City policy The existing utilities have programs for this purpose and they should be continued and expanded where practical. {7-5} V. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, PROGRAMS, & PROCEDURES Statement of Principles The City shall encourage the provision of a wide range of housing types to meet community needs by adopting policies, procedures and incentives that facilitate rather than inhibit the construction and preservation of affordable housing. The Task Force believes that while most city policies serve useful purposes in regulating the type and nature of growth, some regulations, programs and procedures may inhibit housing development in general and affordable housing development in particular. The City should work to remove unnecessary or onerous governmental roadblocks to housing development. Recommendations: 1) Review and amend or replace planning policies so as to ensure that they support the construction of affordable housing a) Review existing and proposed policies, regulations and programs with respect to how they may affect housing production and affordability. i) For example, amend existing policies, regulations, and programs where appropriate to remove provisions that tend to reduce housing affordability. ii) For example, require findings regarding the impact of any new policy, regulation, or program on the financial feasibility of building affordable housing. 2) Provide exceptions to standards and fees for moderate as well as low-income housing, using a scale to provide the greatest relief for housing designed for lower income levels. {7-4} 244

245 3) Refine definition of affordability to reconcile how rental and for-sale prices are evaluated and create an extremely low and an above moderate (120%-160% of median income) category. {8-3} 4) Make a commitment to strong incentives. {9-2} a) Create incentives that are significant enough to make an impact on housing production and affordability. b) Adjust incentives on a scale so to offer more incentives for low vs. moderate income housing. 5) Modify inclusionary housing policies to emphasize incentives, including density bonuses and other provisions that encourage the production of affordable units. {8-3} 6) Clarify the conditions and incentives for preserving existing housing. a) Historic buildings and districts should be respected, recognizing that building clusters and neighborhoods as well as individual buildings can be historically significant. i) Clarify criteria and process ii) The City should define buildings & districts beforehand to extent possible iii) The City should seek to retain character and style in neighborhoods b) Housing conservation in areas (a) not identified as historic districts and (b) not in R-1, R- 2, R-3, or R-4 zones needs to be clarified (specific buildings or dwelling unit count) i) Greater predictability in rules is desirable. ii) The Task Force discussed the conversion of housing to other uses (i.e., offices). This conflict between achieving no-net-loss and simply allowing what underlying zoning allows was not resolved. iii) Existing rules regarding no-net-loss for conversion of four or more units should be retained. iv) Incentives should be used to help retain residential units when less-than-four residential units are affected by a development. c) The City should provide appropriate incentives to encourage additional housing in the downtown, particularly in mixed-use developments. i) Density or use bonus and additional allowable heights ii) Flexibility in parking requirements for mixed use housing iii) Fee reductions iv) Encourage mixed use conversions v) No-net-loss of residential units requirements can be satisfied in nonresidential (i.e., not R-1 through R-4) zones if conversion includes mixed-use housing. d) The City should streamline housing approval procedures. {7-4} e) The City should maintain and publicize a list of dwellings available for relocation. {9-2} f) The City should redefine development standards and create incentives for R3 and R4 zones to facilitate the construction of multi-family housing that approaches full density. {9-2} g) The City should support an affordable housing manager to coordinate housing programs with other City departments and outside organizations. i) Direct the housing manager to address implementation of the recommendations in this report, particularly removal of barriers, provision of incentives, and clarification of criteria and processes. 245

246 Unresolved Issues The Task Force debated how to address the conservation of housing not in R-1, R-2. R-3 or R-4 zones and not in historic districts. The primary concern of the debate focused on what might be called transitional areas around Downtown that were once primarily residential. The majority of the members felt that landowners in such zones have the flexibility to develop their property according to the full range of uses permitted in the zone. Within this group, some were very comfortable with including housing in new mixed-use developments, particularly if incentives were offered to address building mass and parking requirements. In other words, this group interprets the notion of no net loss as applying to maintaining the number of housing units, rather than individual structures per se. The minority perspective included two concerns one focused on design and the other focused on affordability. With respect to design, this group argued that the scale of existing residential units contributes to the character of a transitional neighborhood, so the structures themselves need to be preserved as part of any land use conversion. Often, also, the design and spatial quality of these dwellings is irreplaceable (Victorians or large bungalows, for example) and thus the loss to housing variety as well as neighborhood character caused by their removal can be significant. With respect to affordability, this group argued that replacement units may not be as affordable as existing housing and/or might be built for smaller households, resulting in a net loss in the supply of housing for some markets even if the number of units is maintained. 246

247 VI. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING Statement of Principles The Task Force believes that in order to achieve the desired goal of the creation of more units of affordable housing in the City of San Luis Obispo, innovative incentive and financing programs as well as modifications to current City programs will be required. Recommendations: C) Support a Countywide Housing Trust Fund (CHTF) D) City should work with the CHTF to secure dedicated sources of funding. E) To assist the CHTF, the City should focus on grants, loan guarantees, Prop 46 funds, and City inclusionary housing funds. {9-2} F) Increase inclusionary housing requirements for commercial development {6-5} G) Spread cost of Affordable housing to entire community by developing or reallocating sources of funding. H) Enact a City real estate transfer fee. {6-5} I) Dedicate part of TOT to housing programs. {8-3} J) Amend the following affordable housing standards: K) Create a Extremely Low-Income Category for Rental Housing L) Created an Above Moderate Income Category ranging from % of area median income M) Modify the formula for calculating maximum Affordable Housing Sales Price using typical lending practices. Specifically, sales price should be based upon maximum loan plus 3% down payment. Maximum loan should be calculated using 30-year amortization and interest rate based on 11 th District Cost of funds plus 3%. 247

248 Minority Opinion Report As should be expected, the members of the Housing Element Update Task Force did not agree on all specific issues brought before them. Where those issues could not be revised to reach consensus, the prevailing opinion as indicated by vote of the members in attendance, was used in the main report and recommendation to the Planning Commission. This minority opinion report includes those issues that were deleted from the main report. It was agreed that the Planning Commission should have the benefit of seeing the issues forwarded by a subcommittee or member if at least two members supported the idea. This minority opinion report does not include arguments or other references to issues that were put into the main report over the protest of a minority of the Task Force members but that is reflected in the votes shown after each issue. No separately prepared opinions have been included that express additional minority opinions although this was discussed at a Task Force meeting. Individual members may submit written or oral comments directly to the Planning Commission on issues that specifically support or oppose in this report. The following comments along with the Task Force vote are arranged in the same order as the main report for easy reference. I. URBAN FORM AND CONTEXT Unresolved Issues: The general issue of infill development and densification raised concerns among some members of the Task Force. These included the following: 1) Development of higher-density housing could have a harmful effect on neighborhood quality of life. This could be especially true for higher-density housing in or near existing R-1 neighborhoods. 2) Redevelopment of existing structures could have a negative effect on the character of certain neighborhoods, particularly the older ones in and around downtown. 3) Redevelopment of existing commercial structures downtown may not be economically viable. 4) The relaxation of parking standards could exacerbate existing parking problems, particularly the amount of on-street parking. 5) The relaxation of open space standards in annexation areas could lead to increased development of existing farmland within the urban reserve line. II. HOUSING DESIGN, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND LIVABILITY The following two paragraphs were removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of The preceding language was left in as Specific Recommendation 1): a) Common outdoor spaces should create a sense of identity and focus for the development and be usable for a variety of passive recreation and social activities. Common outdoor areas relegated to awkward leftover spaces of lots or dominated by parking drives or areas are 248

249 undesirable. Numeric standards should not be the sole criteria for judging the adequacy of required outdoor space. b) Private outdoor spaces should be contiguous to the units they serve, have adequate dimensions for a variety of uses, be screened from public view, and have exposure to sunlight for a meaningful period of daylight hours. Outdoor spaces whose dimensions are too shallow or narrow, open to public view, or effectively shaded by overhangs, projecting balconies, or other elements, are undesirable. The guidelines should clarify that the minimum other yard requirement of five feet should not be used where such yard constitutes the primary private outdoor space for a unit. In such cases, the minimum dimension should be ten feet and no overhead projections or coverings should be allowed. The following paragraph was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of The preceding language was left in as Specific Recommendation 3): The Community Design Guidelines encourage building separations and changes in plane and height. These include such building elements as bay windows, porches, arcades, dormers, and so forth to relieve flat walls and roofs of excessive length. At the same time, piecemeal embellishments of facades and frequent changes in materials, particularly in smaller developments or where many individual units stand together are undesirable. The Guidelines should be revised to clarify that the architecture of a building or group of buildings should be a coherent design, and that variety should derive from changes in scale, massing and fenestration. Superficial stylistic variations between adjoining buildings should be avoided. III. PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND CONSERVATION OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK The following sentence was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 6-4: Retain integrity of open space on each lot. Consider entire area as in a planned development. 8 The following sentence was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 7-3: To help residents preserve and enhance their neighborhoods, the City will: Identify neighborhoods, and work with residents to prepare neighborhood plans that empower them to shape their neighborhoods. (Also see Land Use Program LU-2.15A.) The following sentence was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 6-4: Devise strategies to help stabilize the rental/owner ratio, to maintain neighborhood character, safety, and stability. (Also see Land Use Program LU-2.15B.) The following sentence was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 9-2: Encouraging any infill housing constructed by the university to maintain the character and density of the lowest zoned neighborhood in its vicinity. 249

250 The following sentence was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 6-4-1: Use new construction and compliance procedures under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) to increase the proportion of housing throughout the City that is accessible or adaptable for use by residents with physical disabilities. IV. SUSTAINABLE HOUSING, SITE, AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN In the following sentence, one member believes that there was some support for 60 years or more and staff was not able to determine if more members agreed. The statement with at least 55 years was left in the main report. Create affordable rental housing that stays affordable for at least 55 years, whenever that is possible (see federal tax credit provisions). The following sentence was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 5-3-1: Maintain existing rear yard green space to provide lungs or green guts for the core city. V. GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, PROGRAMS, & PROCEDURES No minority positions. VI. FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING The following sentence was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 8-3: City should provide interim financial and staff support to the CHTF (Countywide Housing Trust Fund). The following sentence was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 7-4: The City should implement and encourage other jurisdictions to implement such things as real estate transfer fees for funding purposes. The following paragraph was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 10-1: Provide 50% of new housing as affordable (period). A. Establish comprehensive-enough programs to reach this goal. B. Use growth cap as tool. The following sentence was removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 9-2: Limit Size of new SFR or place luxury tax on them. The following two paragraphs were removed from the Subcommittee recommended comments on a vote of 8-3: 250

251 One member recommended a 20% general density bonus above and beyond the current allowable densities in all R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones presently located within any present or proposed city core areas (to be determined in the future) of San Luis Obispo. He also recommended an additional 20% general density beyond the initial density bonus for developing any form of attached housing, any multi-family development that exceeds two (2) stories in height, or any Mixed Use Development that combines housing with any non-residential land use in order to increase the available housing stock while using developable land in a more efficient manner. Furthermore, He recommended that any housing development that exceeds 5 or more units be given an additional 20% density bonus above and beyond the two previously recommended density bonuses for developments that create 25% or more of the total housing units in a given development that meet the countywide or the local criteria for Affordable Housing Units. Where developments exceed 20 or more units and create 25% or more of the total housing units as Affordable Units he recommends a 30% density bonus be given above and beyond the two previously recommended density bonuses. 251

252 Appendix H General Plan Consistency Analysis State law requires general plans to be internally consistent. Therefore, the goals and policies of each element of the general plan must be consistent with other elements so that specific goals and policies in one element do not conflict with or obstruct the accomplishment of those contained in another element. San Luis Obispo s General Plan contains the seven elements required by State law. In addition, the City has also adopted optional elements as part of the General Plan. State law requires that any optional elements adopted at the discretion of the jurisdiction must also be consistent with the General Plan. An analysis of the internal consistency, summarized in Table H-1, was done as part of the Housing Element update process. Through this analysis, it has been determined that the Housing Element is consistent with the goals, policies and programs set forth in the General Plan and its associated elements. In the following matrix, Y indicates the Housing Element goal, policy or program is consistent. 252

253 Table H-1 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS Land Use Circulation Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis Goal 1 Safety. Providing safe, decent shelter for all residents Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.1 Assist those citizens unable to obtain safe shelter on their own. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.2 Support and inform the public about fair housing laws and programs that allow equal housing access for all city residents. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.3 Maintain a level of housing code enforcement sufficient to correct unsafe, unsanitary or illegal conditions and to preserve the inventory of safe housing. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.4 Provide financial assistance to very-low, low- and moderate-income homeowners and renters for the rehabilitation of approximately 45 rental housing units and 45 single-family or mobile home units using Federal, State and local housing funds, such as Community Development Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Block Grant Funds. 1.5 Continue code enforcement to expedite the removal of illegal or unsafe dwellings, to eliminate hazardous site or property conditions, and resolve chronic building safety problems. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.6 Enact a Rental Inspection Program to improve the condition of the City s housing stock. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.7 Continue to support local and regional solutions to homelessness by funding programs such as the SLO Homeless Shelter and Prado Day Center for Homeless Persons. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1.8 Create an educational campaign for owners of older residences informing them of ways to reduce the seismic hazards commonly found in such structures, and encouraging them to undertake seismic upgrades. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Goal 2 Affordability. Accommodate affordable housing production that helps meet the City s Quantified Objectives. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2.1 Income Levels For Affordable Housing. For purposes of this Housing Element, affordable housing is that which is obtainable by a household with a particular income level, as further Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y described in the City s Affordable Housing Standards. 2.2 Index of Affordability. The Index of Affordability shall be whether the monthly cost of housing fits within the following limits: Very-Low and Low, 25%; Moderate, 30% monthly income. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2.3 For housing to qualify as "affordable" under the provisions of this Element, guarantees must be presented that ownership or rental housing units will remain affordable for the longest period allowed by State law, or for a shorter period under an equity-sharing or rehabilitation agreement with the City. 2.4 Encourage housing production for all financial strata of the City's population, in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, for the planning period. The proportions shall be: extremely-low income - 11%; very low income - 12%; low income - 16%; moderate income - 19%; and above moderate income - 42%. Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

254 HOUSING GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS ELEMENT Land Use Circulation Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis 2.5 Amend the Inclusionary Housing Requirement, Tables 2 and 2A, to provide more ways for commercial development projects to meet the requirements, such as by providing land in an amount sufficient to accommodate the number of inclusionary housing units required by the Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ordinance, or by converting existing offsite units to affordable units through deed restrictions. 2.6 Prepare criteria to manage the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) so that the fund serves as a sustainable resource for supporting affordable housing development. The fund shall serve as a source of both grant funding and below-market financing for affordable housing projects; and funds shall be used to support a wide variety of housing types at every income level (extremely Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y low, very low, low, moderate and workforce), but with a focus on production efficiency to maximize housing benefits for the City s financial investment, an to support high-quality housing projects that would not be feasible without AHF support. 2.7 Review existing and proposed building, planning, engineering and fire policies and standards to determine whether changes are possible that could assist the production of affordable housing., or that would encourage preservation of housing rather than conversion to nonresidential uses, provided such changes would not conflict with other General Plan policies. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Such periodic reviews will seek to remove regulations that have been superseded, are redundant or are no longer needed. 2.8 Establish permit streamlining procedures to speed up the processing of applications, construction permits, and water and sewer service priorities for affordable housing projects. City staff and commissions should give such projects priority in allocating work assignments, Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y scheduling, conferences and hearings, and in preparing and issuing reports and water and sewer service allocations. 2.9 Pursue outside funding sources for the payment of City impact fees so that new dwellings that meet the City s affordable housing standards can mitigate their facility and service impacts Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y without adversely affecting housing affordability To the extent outside funding sources can be identified to offset impacts on the City funds, exempt dwellings that meet the moderate income, Affordable Housing Standards from planning, building and engineering development review and permit fees, including water meter installation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y fee. Retain current exemptions for very-low and low-income households Help coordinate public and private sector actions to encourage the development of housing that meets the City s housing needs. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater 254

255 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS 2.12 Assist with the issuance of bonds, tax credit financing, loan underwriting or other financial tools to help develop or preserve affordable units through various programs, including, but not limited to: (1) below-market financing through the SLO County Housing Trust Fund and (2) subsidized mortgages for extremely-low, very-low, low- and moderate-income persons and firsttime home buyers, and (3) self-help or sweat equity homeowner housing Amend Affordable Housing Standards to establish a methodology for adjusting affordable housing standards and secure Council approval. Consider incorporating HOA fees and a standard allowance for utilities in the calculation for affordable rents and sales prices In conjunction with the Housing Authority and other local housing agencies, provide ongoing technical assistance and education to tenants, property owners and the community at large on the need to preserve at-risk units as well as the available tools to help them do so In conjunction with local housing providers and the local residential design community, provide technical assistance to the public, builders, design professionals and developers regarding design strategies to achieve affordable housing Evaluate the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requirements and the effect of Table 2A on the City s ability to provide affordable housing in the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, per Policy The City will evaluate and consider including a workforce level of affordability in its Affordable Housing Standards to increase housing options in the City for those making between 120 percent and 160 percent of the San Luis Obispo County median income. This affordability category cannot be used to meet inclusionary housing ordinance requirements and is not eligible Land Use Circulation Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y for City Affordable Housing Funds Evaluate and consider increasing residential densities on appropriate sites for housing affordable to extremely low income households. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Goal 3 Housing Conservation. Conserve existing housing and prevent the loss of safe housing and the displacement of current occupants. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3.1 Encourage rehabilitation, remodeling or relocation of sound or rehabitable housing rather than demolition. Demolition of non-historic housing may be permitted where conservation of existing housing would preclude the achievement of other housing objectives or adopted City goals. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 255

256 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS Land Use Circulation Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis Physically infeasible, or 2) an equivalent number of new units comparable or better in affordability and amenities to those being replaced is provided, or (3) the project will correct substandard, blighted or unsafe housing; and (4) replacement will not adversely affect housing which is already designated, or is determined to qualify for designation as historic resource. 3.3 Encourage seismic upgrades of older dwellings to reduce the risk of bodily harm and the loss of housing in an earthquake. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3.4 Encourage the construction, preservation, rehabilitation or expansion of residential hotels, group homes, integrated community apartments, and single-room occupancy dwellings. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3.5 Preserve historic homes and other historic residential buildings, historic districts and unique or landmark neighborhood features Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3.6 Preserve the fabric, amenities, setbacks, and overall character and quality of life of established neighborhoods. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3.7 Support creative strategies for the rehabilitation and adaptation and reuse of residential, commercial, and industrial structures for housing, including the rehabilitation and improvement of mobile homes. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3.8 Adopt an ordinance that implements policy 3.2 to discourage removal or replacement of affordable housing. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3.9 Correct unsafe, unsanitary or illegal housing conditions, improve accessibility and energy efficiency and improve neighborhoods by collaborating with agencies offering rehabilitation programs. City will use State or Federal grants or other housing funds to implement the program Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y and provide services such as home weatherization, repair and universal access improvements Preserve the number of dwellings in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) and the Downtown Planning Area by continuing the "no net housing loss" program so that as of the baseline date of March 30, 2004, the number of dwellings removed shall not exceed the number of dwellings Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y added Identify residential properties and districts eligible for local, State or Federal listing and prepare guidelines and standards to help property owners repair, rehabilitate and improve Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y properties in a historically and architecturally sensitive manner To encourage housing rehabilitation, amend the Affordable Housing Standards to allow a reduced term of affordability for rehabilitated units, to the extent allowed by State or Federal law, with a minimum term of three years and in proportion to the level of City assistance. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater 256

257 Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS Land Use Circulation Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater 3.13 Establish a monitoring and early warning system to track affordable housing units at-risk of being converted to market rate housing. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3.14 Working with non-profit organizations, faith-based organizations, or the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, the City will help rehabilitate residential, commercial or industrial buildings to expand extremely low, very-low, low or moderate income rental housing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y opportunities, including mobile homes. Goal 4 Mixed`-Income Housing. Preserve and accommodate existing and new mixedincome neighborhoods and seek to prevent neighborhoods or housing types that are segregated by economic status. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 4.1 Within newly developed neighborhoods, housing that is affordable to various economic strata should be intermixed rather than segregated into separate enclaves. The mix should be comparable to the relative percentages of very-low, low, moderate and above-moderate income Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y households in the City s quantified objectives. 4.2 Include both market-rate and affordable units in apartment and residential condominium projects and intermix the types of units. Affordable units should be comparable in appearance and basic quality to market-rate units. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 4.3 Extremely-low and very-low income housing, such as those developed by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo or other housing providers, may be located in any zone that allows housing, and should be dispersed throughout the City rather than concentrated in Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y one neighborhood or zone. In general, 23 dwellings should be the maximum number of verylow-income units developed on any one site. 4.4 In its discretionary actions, housing programs and activities, the City shall affirmatively further fair housing and promote equal housing opportunities for persons of all economic Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y segments of the community. 4.5 Review new development proposals for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the mixed-income policies. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Goal 5 Housing Variety and Tenure. Provide variety in the location, type, size, tenure, and style of dwellings. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 5.1 Encourage the integration of appropriately scaled, special-use housing into developments or neighborhoods of conventional housing. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 5.2 Encourage mixed-use residential/commercial projects to include live-work and work-live units where housing, offices or other commercial uses are compatible. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 257

258 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS 258 Land Use Circulation Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis 5.3 Encourage the development of housing above ground-level retail stores and offices to provide housing opportunities close to activity centers and to use land efficiently. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 5.4 In general, housing developments of twenty (20) or more units should provide a variety of dwelling types, sizes and forms of tenure. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 5.5 Review new developments for compliance with City regulations and revise projects or establish conditions of approval as needed to implement the housing variety and tenure policies. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Goal 6 Housing Production. Plan for new housing to meet the full range of community housing needs. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6.1 Consistent with the growth management portion of its Land Use Element and the availability of adequate resources, the City will plan to accommodate up to 985 dwelling units between January 1, 2010 and December 31, Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6.2 New commercial developments in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone) shall include housing, unless the City makes one of the following findings: (1) Housing is likely to jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of residents or employees, or (2) The property s shape, size, topography or Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y other physical factor makes dwellings infeasible. 6.3 If City services must be rationed to new development, residential projects will be given priority over non-residential projects. As required by SB 1087, housing affordable to lower Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y income households will be given first priority. 6.4 City costs of providing services to housing development will be minimized. Other than for existing programs encouraging housing affordable to extremely-low, very-low and low income persons, the City will not make new housing more affordable by shifting costs to existing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y residents. 6.5 When sold, purchased or redeveloped for public or private uses, City-owned properties within the urban reserve shall include housing as either a freestanding project or part of a mixeduse Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y development. 6.6 Property located behind the former County General Hospital shall be considered a Special Considerations zone and may be considered suitable for residential development, provided that development be limited to site areas with average slopes of less than 20 percent, that Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y approximately one-half of the total site area be dedicated for open space and/or public use, and that an additional water tank be provided if determined necessary to serve new development. 6.7 Support the redevelopment of excess public and private utility properties for housing where appropriately located and consistent with the General Plan. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6.8 Maintain the General Plan and Residential Growth Management Regulations (SLOMC 17.88) to exempt all new housing in the C-D zone, and new housing in other zones that is enforceable Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater

259 Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS restricted for extremely-low, very low-, low- and moderate- income households, pursuant to the Affordable Housing Standards. In expansion areas, the overall number of units built must conform to the City-approved phasing plan. 6.9 Amend the Zoning Regulations to allow flexible parking regulations for housing development, especially in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), including the possibilities of flexible use of City parking facilities by Downtown residents, where appropriate, and reduced or no parking requirements where appropriate guarantees limit occupancies to persons without motor vehicles or who provide proof of reserved, off-site parking. Such developments may be subject to requirements for parking use fees, use limitations and enforcement provisions Provide incentives to encourage additional housing in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), particularly in mixed-use developments. Incentives may include flexible density, use, height, or parking provisions, fee reductions, and streamlined development review and permit processing Specific plans for the Orcutt Expansion Area and any new expansion area identified shall include R-3 and R-4 zoned land to ensure sufficient land is designated at appropriate densities to accommodate the development of extremely-low, very-low and low-income dwellings. These plans shall include sites suitable for subsidized rental housing and affordable rental and owneroccupied dwellings, and programs to support the construction of dwellings rather than payment of I n-lieu housing fees. Such sites shall be integrated within neighborhoods of market-rate housing and shall be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood Consider General Plan amendments to rezone commercial, manufacturing or public facility zoned areas for higher-density, infill or mixed use housing where land development patterns are suitable and where impact to Low-Density Residential areas is minimal. For example, areas to be considered for possible rezoning include, but are not limited to the following sites (shown in Figure 1 and further described in Appendix D, Table D-2): Portions of South Broad Street Corridor and Little Italy area 145 Grand Avenue (Pacheco School) 1499 San Luis Drive (rezone vacant and underutilized School District property) 1642 Johnson Avenue (vacant School District property) 4325 South Higuera Street (former P.G.&E. yard) 4355 Vachell Lane (vehicle storage) 313 South Street (McCarthy Tank and Steel) Land Use Circulation Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 259

260 173 Buckley Road (Avila Ranch) 2143 Johnson Avenue (adjacent to County Health Department) 3710 Broad Street (Plumbers and Steamfitters Union) Los Osos Valley Road (Pacific Beach High School) 2500 Block of Boulevard Del Campo (adjacent to Sinsheimer Park) Los Osos Valley Road 6.13 Continue to support the SLO County Housing Trust fund s efforts to provide below-market financing and technical assistance to affordable housing developers as a way to increase affordable housing production in the City of San Luis Obispo 6.14 Prioritize City efforts to encourage residential development by focusing on infill development and densification within City Limits and designated expansion areas over new annexation of residential land Seek opportunities with other public agencies and public utilities to identify, assemble, develop, redevelop and recycle surplus land for housing, and to convert vacant or underutilized public, utility or institutional buildings to housing Develop multi-family housing design standards to promote innovative, attractive, wellintegrated higher-density housing. Developments that meet these standards shall be eligible for a streamlined level of planning and development review. Developments that include a significant commitment to affordable housing may also be eligible to receive density bonuses, parking Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y reductions and other development incentives, including City financial assistance Complete Orcutt Area Specific Plan and consider final City approval to annex the Orcutt specific planning area by December Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6.18 Financially assist in the development of housing affordable to extremely-low, very-low, low- and moderate-income households during the planning period using State, Federal and local funding sources, with funding priority given to projects that result in the maximum housing benefits for the lowest household income levels Actively seek new revenue sources, including State, Federal and private/non-profit sources, and financing mechanisms to assist affordable housing development for extremely low, very low and low or moderate income households and first- time homebuyers Update the Community Design Guidelines and amend SLOMC Chapter 2.48 to exempt the construction, relocation, rehabilitation or remodeling of up to 4 dwellings of up to 1200 square feet each from Architectural Review Commission review. New multi-unit housing may be allowed with Minor or Incidental or staff level architectural review, unless the dwellings are located on a sensitive or historically sensitive site Assist in the production of long-term affordable housing by identifying vacant or underutilized City-owned property suitable for housing, and dedicate public property, where feasible and appropriate, for such purposes Community Development staff will prepare property profiles describing properties suitable for housing to facilitate public or private development, and make this information publicly available Amend the General Plan to designate the 46 acres associated with the former County General Hospital as a Special Considerations zone, suitable for housing development on areas of the site of less than 20 percent average slope, and that open space dedication and public improvements are by the developer as part of the project. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6.24 Update the Affordable Housing Incentives (Chapter 17.90, SLOMC) and Zoning Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 260

261 Regulations to ensure density bonus incentives are consistent with State Law Evaluate and consider increasing the residential density allowed in development projects in the Neighborhood-Commercial (CN), Office (O) and Downtown Commercial (CD) zoning districts. The City will evaluate allowing up to 24 units per acre in the CN and O zones, and up to 72 units per acre in the CD zone, twice the current density allowed in these areas Evaluate how underlying lot patterns in the City s multi-family zones affect the City s ability to meet housing production policies. If warranted, consider setting a minimum number of dwellings on each legal lot in the R-2, R-3 and R-4 zones, regardless of lot size, when other property development standards, such as parking, height limits and setbacks can be met. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6.27 To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6.28 Consider changes to the Secondary Dwelling Unit (SDU)) Ordinance, including possible incentives such as SDU design templates, flexible development standards, fee reductions or deferrals, or other measures to encourage the construction of SDUs where allowed by zoning. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6.29 Evaluate and consider adopting Subdivision and Zoning Regulations changes to support small lot subdivisions, ownership bungalow court development, eliminating the one acre minimum lot area for PD overlay zoning, and other alternatives to conventional subdivision design. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Goal 7 Neighborhood Quality. Maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods, encourage neighborhood stability, and improve neighborhood appearance and function. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7.1 Within established neighborhoods, new residential development shall be of a character, size, density and quality that preserves the neighborhood character and maintains the quality of life for existing and future residents. 7.2 Higher density housing should maintain high quality standards for unit design, privacy, security, on-site amenities, and public and private open space. Such standards should be flexible enough to allow innovative design solutions in special circumstances, e.g. in developing mixed-use developments or in housing in the Downtown Core. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7.3 Within established neighborhoods, housing should not be located on sites designated in the General Plan for parks or open space. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7.4 Within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integral part of an existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools and shopping areas. 7.5 The creation of walled-off residential enclaves, or of separate, unconnected tracts, is discouraged because physical separations prevent the formation of safe, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhoods. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7.6 Housing shall be sited to enhance safety along neighborhood streets and in other public and semi-public areas. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7.7 The physical designs of neighborhoods and dwellings should promote walking and bicycling, and should preserve open spaces and views. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 261

262 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS Land Use Circulation Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis 7.8 Implement varied strategies to ensure residents are aware of and able to participate in planning decisions affecting their neighborhoods early in the planning process. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7.9 Identify specific neighborhood needs, problems, trends and opportunities for improvements. Work directly with neighborhood groups and individuals to address concerns. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7.10 Help fund neighborhood improvements, including sidewalks, traffic calming devices, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and street lighting to improve aesthetics, safety and Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y accessibility Continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies, including parking districts, to address the lack of on- and off-street parking in residential areas. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Goal 8.1 Special Housing Needs. Encourage the creation and maintenance of housing for those with special housing needs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.1 Encourage housing development that meets a variety of special needs, including large families, single parents, disabled persons, the elderly, students, the homeless, or those seeking congregate care, group housing, single-room occupancy or co-housing accommodations, utilizing universal design. 8.2 Preserve mobile home and manufactured housing parks and support changes in this form of tenure only if such changes provide residents with greater long-term security or comparable housing in terms of quality, cost, and livability. 8.3.Encourage manufactured homes in Expansion Areas by: -When the City considers adopting new specific plans, including policies that support owneroccupied manufactured home parks with amenities such as greenbelts, recreation facilities, and shopping services within a master planned community setting. Such parks could be specifically designed to help address the needs of those with mobility and transportation limitations. -Establishing lot sizes, setback, and parking guidelines that allow for relatively dense placement of manufactured homes within the master planned neighborhood. -Locating manufactured home parks near public transit facilities or provide public transportation services to the manufactured home parks to minimize the need for residents to own automobiles. 8.4 Encourage Cal Poly University to continue to develop on-campus student housing to meet existing and future needs and to lessen pressure on City housing supply and transportation systems. Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 262

263 HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS Land Use Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis 8.5 Strengthen the role of on-campus housing by encouraging Cal Poly University to require entering freshmen students to live on campus during their first year. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.6.Locate fraternities and sororities on the Cal Poly University campus. Until that is possible, they should be located in Medium-High and High Density residential zones near the campus. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.7 Encourage Cal Poly University to develop and maintain faculty and staff housing, consistent with the General Plan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.8 Disperse special needs living facilities throughout the City where public transit and commercial services are available, rather than concentrating them in one district. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.9 Support continued efforts to implement the document The Path Home: San Luis Obispo County s 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.10 Encourage a variety of housing types that accommodate persons with disabilities and promote aging in place, including a goal of visitability in new residential units, with an Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y emphasis on first-floor accessibility to the maximum extent feasible As funding allows, support local and regional solutions to meeting the needs of the homeless and continue to support, jointly with other agencies, shelters for the homeless and for displaced women and children. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.12 Continue the mobile home rent stabilization program to minimize increases in the cost of mobile home park rents. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.13 Identify sites in specified expansion areas suitable for tenant-owned mobile-home parks, cooperative housing, manufactured housing, self-help housing, or other types of housing that meet special needs Advocate developing non-dormitory housing on the Cal Poly University campus and refurbishing existing campus housing and its associated programs to make campus living more attractive and affordable. Circulation Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.15 Work with Cal Poly University Administration to secure designation of on-campus fraternity/sorority living groups. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.16 Jointly develop and implement a student housing plan and "good neighbor program" with Cal Poly University, Cuesta College and City residents. The program would seek to improve communication and cooperation between the City and the schools, set on-campus student housing objectives and establish clear, effective standards for student housing in residential neighborhoods. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.17 Provide public educational information at the City s Community Development Department public counter on universal design concepts in new construction. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 263

264 Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS 8.18 Solicit input on the zoning ordinance provisions for homeless shelters from service agencies that work with extremely-low income persons and the homeless or persons/families atrisk of homelessness such as the Economic Opportunity Commission (EOC), the Department of Social Services of the County of San Luis Obispo, and the Leadership Council for the 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness Within one year of Housing Element adoption, update the Zoning Ordinance to allow homeless shelters by right provided they are consistent with the ministerial review standards identified in State law. The City will establish objective standards with input from service agencies to regulate the following, as permitted under SB2, including: -The maximum number of beds/persons permitted; -Parking based on demonstrated need but that does not exceed parking requirements for other uses in the same zone; -The size/location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas; -The provision of onsite management; -The proximity of other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart; -The length of stay; -Lighting; and security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation Transitional Housing and Supportive Housing: Continue to allow the establishment of transitional and supportive housing that functions as residential uses in residential zones consistent with similar residential uses Identify properties (land, retail or commercial space, motels, apartments, housing units, mobile home parks) that can be acquired and converted to affordable permanent housing and permanent supportive housing for homeless persons and families Update the Community Design Guidelines code to include universal access standards such as at-grade threshold entry for ground floor dwellings, accessible exterior path of travel, accessible interior path of travel for ground floor dwellings (wider hallways and doorways), an accessible common room (in addition to kitchen), an accessible half- or full bathroom on the ground floor Consult with service agencies that work with the disabled and prepare and adopt a program addressing reasonable accommodation to land use and zoning decisions and procedures regulating the siting, funding, development and use of housing for persons with disabilities Land Use Circulation Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 264

265 8.24 Consider addition of an overlay zone to existing mobile home and trailer park sites to Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS Land Use Circulation Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis provide constructive notice that additional requirements, such as rent stabilization and a mobile home park conversion ordinance may apply. Goal 9 Sustainable Housing, Site, and Neighborhood Design. As part of its overall commitment to quality of life for its citizens, and to maintain environmental quality, the City encourages housing that is resource-conserving, healthful, economical to live in, Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y environmentally benign, and recyclable when demolished. 9.1 Residential developments should promote sustainability in their design, placement, and use. Sustainability can be promoted through a variety of housing strategies. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9.2 Residential site, subdivision, and neighborhood designs should be coordinated to make residential sustainability work. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9.3 Preserve the physical neighborhood qualities in the Downtown Planning Area that contribute to sustainabilitym by maintaining overall scale, density and architectural character. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9.4 To promote energy conservation and a cleaner environment, encourage the development of dwellings with energy-efficient designs, utilizing passive and active solar features, and the use of energy-saving techniques that exceed the minimums prescribed by State law. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9.5 Actively promote water conservation through housing and site design to help moderate the cost of housing. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9.6 Educate planning and building staff and citizen review bodies on energy conservation issues, including the City s energy conservation policies and instruct that they work with applicants to achieve the housing goals that conserve energy. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9.7 Evaluate present solar siting and access regulations to determine if they provide assurance of long-term solar access for new or remodeled housing and for adjacent properties, and revise regulations found to be inadequate. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9.8 Adopt Low-Impact Development (LID) standards, including street and access way standards that reduce the amount of paving devoted to automobiles. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9.9 Adopt an ordinance with requirements and incentives to increase the production of green housing units and projects and require use of sustainable and/or renewable materials, water and Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y energy technologies (such as, but not limited to solar, wind, or thermal) Promote building materials reuse and recycling through a construction debris recycling program. Goal 10 Local Preference. Maximize affordable housing opportunities for those who live or Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater 265

266 work in San Luis Obispo while seeking to balance job growth and housing supply. Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS Land Use Circulation Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater 10.1 Administer City housing programs and benefits, such as First Time Homebuyer assistance or affordable housing lotteries, to give preference to: 1) persons living or working in the City or within the City s Urban Reserve, and 2) persons living in San Luis Obispo County Cal Poly State University and Cuesta College should actively work with the City and community organizations to create positive environments around the Cal Poly Campus by: Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y -Establishing standards for appropriate student densities in neighborhoods near Campus; -Promoting homeownership for academic faculty and staff in Low-Density Residential neighborhoods near Campus; and -Encouraging and participating in the revitalization of degraded neighborhoods Work with the County of San Luis Obispo to mitigate housing impacts on the City due to significant expansion of employment in the unincorporated areas adjacent to the City. Such mitigation might include, for example, County participation and support for Inclusionary Housing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Programs Encourage residential developers to promote their projects within the San Luis Obispo housing market area (San Luis Obispo County) first. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10.5 Advocate the establishment of a link between enrollment and the expansion of campus housing programs at Cal Poly University to reduce pressure on the City's housing supply. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10.6 Work with other jurisdictions to advocate for State legislation that would: 1) provide funding to help Cal Poly University and Cuesta College provide adequate on-campus student housing, and 2) allow greater flexibility for State universities and community colleges to enter into publicprivate partnerships to construct student housing. Goal 11 Suitability. Develop and retain housing on sites that are suitable for that purpose Where property is equally suited for commercial or residential uses, give preference to residential use. Changes in land use designation from residential to non-residential should be discouraged Prevent new housing development on sites that should be preserved as dedicated open space or parks, on sites subject to natural hazards such as unmitigatable geological or flood risks, or wild fire dangers, and on sites subject to unacceptable levels of man-made hazards or nuisances, including severe soil contamination, airport noise or hazards, traffic noise or hazards, odors or incompatible neighboring uses. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 266

267 Table H-1 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Consistency Analysis HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS/POLICIES/PROGRAMS Land Use Circulation Open Space Noise Safety Conservation Energy Conservation Parks and Recreation Water and Wastewater 11.3 City will adopt measures ensuring the ability of legal, conforming non-residential uses to continue where new housing is proposed on adjacent or nearby sites. Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 267

268 Appendix I Public Distribution List Barasch Architects, San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association, San Luis Obispo Brett Cross, Residents For Quality Neighborhoods, San Luis Obispo Cal Poly University College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Attn: Tom Jones Cal Poly University Housing, Attn: Preston Allen, San Luis Obispo Cannon Associates, Attn: John Evans, San Luis Obispo Carolyn Smith, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, San Luis Obispo Cuesta College, San Luis Obispo Dan Carpenter, San Luis Obispo Downtown Association, Attn: Deborah Cash, San Luis Obispo County of San Luis Obispo, General Services, County Government Center Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County, Attn: Biz Steinberg, San Luis Obispo EcoSLO, Attn: Sandra Sarrouf, San Luis Obispo Economic Vitality Commission, Attn: Mike Manchak Habitat for Humanity, Attn: Penny Rappa, San Luis Obispo Hamish Marshall, WestPac Investments HCD, Attn: Melinda Coy, Sacramento Home Builders Association, Attn: Jerry Bunin, San Luis Obispo Housing Authority of SLO, Attn: Carol Hatley, San Luis Obispo Joan Harper, San Luis Obispo Joe Collins, San Luis Obispo League of Women Voters, San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Madelyn Millholland, San Luis Obispo Mission Community Bank, Attn: Anita Robinson, San Luis Obispo New Times, Attn: Kylie Mendonca, San Luis Obispo Northern Chumash Tribal Council, Attn: Fred Collins, Tribal Spokesperson Oasis Associates, Attn: Carol Florence, San Luis Obispo Pat Cormick, San Luis Obispo Peoples Self-Help Housing Corp., Attn: Ken Tregueiro, San Luis Obispo Richard Schmidt Rosemary Wilvert Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Luis Obispo and San Benito Counties, Sandy Rawley, San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, Attn: Dave Garth San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, Attn: Steve Devencenzi, San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District San Luis Obispo County Department of General Services San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund, Attn: Jerry Rioux San Luis Obispo County Office of Education, Attn: Dr. Julian Crocker San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building Department, Attn: Dana Lilley San Luis Obispo Tribune Newspaper, Attn: Sally Connell, San Luis Obispo San Luis Coastal Unified School District, Attn: Edward T. Valentine Senior Center, Attn: Agatha Reardon, San Luis Obispo Sierra Club, San Luis Obispo SLO Association of Realtors, San Luis Obispo SLO City/County Library SLO Downtown Association, Attn: Deborah Cash, San Luis Obispo SLO Supportive Housing Consortium, San Luis Obispo Tom Swem, San Luis Obispo Workforce Housing Coalition, San Luis Obispo 268

269 Appendix J California Legislative Changes Affecting Housing Legislative Changes Housing element content and organization are governed by State law. Housing elements require regular updates, in part, to be consistent with legislative changes in Sacramento. Following is a synopsis of changes in housing and related laws adopted since 2004 that have shaped this housing element. Bill Synopsis Senate Bill 2 (2008) General: SB 2 clarifies and strengthens housing element law to encourage and facilitate emergency shelters, and restricts the ability of local governments to deny emergency shelters and transitional and supportive housing under the Housing Accountability Act. Specifically SB provides that Local Agencies: Identify at least one zone where emergency shelters are permitted by right without the need to obtain a conditional use permit or other discretionary approval; Ensure that the identified zone has sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelters and at least one location for a year-round emergency shelter; May develop written objective standards for emergency shelters that address maximum number of beds; off-site parking; proximity to other shelters; provision of onsite management; size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting areas; length of stay; lighting; and security during hours the shelter is open. Subject emergency shelters only to development standards that apply to residential or commercial developments within the same zone; Includes flexibility for jurisdictions to meet zoning requirements with existing ordinances or to demonstrate that the need for emergency shelters can be met by in existing shelters or through a multi-jurisdictional agreement; Treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. Must not disapprove very-low, low, moderate income housing or emergency shelters or condition such projects in a way that makes them infeasible unless it makes specific written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record. Assembly Bill 2280 (2008) The subject of multiple changes over the years, AB 2280 aims to clarify density bonus law. Towards this aim, AB 2280: 269

270 Specifies that when an applicants seeks a density bonus the local government must provide them with one even in the absence of a local implementing ordinance; Requires that a city or county provide a waiver of a development standard if the standard physically precludes use of the density bonus or incentives. Clarifies that a density bonus for senior housing applies to the number of senior units only, as opposed to all units in the development if the development includes both senior and non-senior units; and Clarifies that the density bonus shall be against the maximum density allowed under both the land use element of the general plan and the zoning ordinance. Assembly Bill 2634 (2006) AB 2634 requires the city to assess the existing and projected housing needs of extremely low-income households, defined as those earning 30% or less than the median income. Specifically AB 2634: If available, the Housing Element should document the subset of very low-income households that qualify as extremely low-income households or, if data is unavailable, the city should assume that 50% of the very lowincome subset is extremely low-income; Housing element must address the needs of this group by evaluating potential and actual governmental constraints, and considering factory-built housing, mobile homes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single room occupancy or efficiency units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing; Allows the City to meet the regional housing needs allocation for this population with single room occupancy or efficiency units. Assembly Bill 2511 (2006) General: AB 2511 is known as the Housing Accountability Act. This amends several sections of general plan and housing laws to include anti-nimby protections and addresses sites inventories more specifically. AB 2511: A development that includes housing affordable to lower income households or an emergency shelter may only be denied if certain specific written findings are made. If development is approved at a lesser density than was estimated in the sites inventory of a city s housing element, the unused capacity must be available on other sites in order to meet the jurisdiction s regional housing allocation or additional sites must be rezoned in order to meet the capacity required. Senate Bill 1087 (2006) General: SB 1087 requires water and sewer providers to give service priority for proposed developments that include housing affordable to lower-income households. SB 1087 requires the City of San Luis Obispo to: Immediately deliver the adopted housing element of the local general plan and any amendments to water and sewer providers. Establish specific procedures to grant priority service to housing affordable to lower income households. Prohibits water and sewer providers from denying or conditioning the approval of, or reducing the amount of service available to housing affordable to lower income households unless specific written findings are made. Assembly Bill 1233 (2005) AB 1233 requires that any portion of a local government s share of its unmet regional housing need at the end of one 270

271 planning period be carried over into the next. AB 1233 applies only if: The local government failed to adopt an updated housing element for the prior planning period; Adopted a housing element found out of compliance by HCD due to their failure to substantially comply with the adequate sites requirement; Failed to identify or make available adequate sites to accommodate a portion of the regional housing need. Assembly Bill 2348 (2004) AB 2348 reflects the reforms proposed by the Housing Element Working Group. A long, technical bill, AB 2348 revises the following areas: A provision that requires evaluation of existing assisted living facilities that may change from affordable housing projects within the next ten years and an evaluation of how many units may be impacted. Requires an assessment of the cost to replace the affordable units lost and an evaluation of all funding programs that might be available to assist in creating replacement units or in preserving the existing units for lower income households. Requires a more detailed inventory of sites to accommodate the projected housing needs and provides greater development and housing element review certainty. Increase the effectiveness of provision in current law that allows local governments to get "credit" for rehabilitation when identifying adequate sites for affordable housing development. Senate Bill 520 (2001) SB 520 aims to increase housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities. SB 520 requires local governments to: As part of a governmental constraints analysis, an element must analyze potential and actual constraints upon the development, maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities and demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities. As part of the required constraints program, the element must include programs that remove constraints or provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities. 271

272 Appendix K Public Outreach Public Outreach Updating the Housing Element has been a community effort, involving public participation solicited through workshops, legal notices, lists, web-site information, stakeholder meetings, public hearings and consultation with providers. The Draft Housing Element s policies and programs represent a wide range of community perspectives on housing, including neighborhoods, housing consumers, developers, environmental groups, Downtown businesses, and many others. Public outreach efforts, results and responses are described in the table below: DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE /6/0 8 10/8/ Steve Barasch - SLO Prop Owners Assoc List *1 Planning Commission HBA Process should be minor update since major effort happened with 2004 HE. Try joint PC/CC meetings to streamline timing if necessary Notification of PC Hearing with link to staff report and web site following legal ad. Public Hearing kick off the process with work schedule and product description Prevailing wage requirements kill affordable projects. Inclusionary housing ordinance makes projects less affordable: increase average size under Table 2A to incentivize affordable housing production. Unable to schedule joint meetings due to heavy Council agendas. n/a n/a Grant funding comes with federal requirements and City has no ability to change these requirements. Inclusionary housing ordinance results in deed-restricted affordable units. Market average exceeds statedefined affordability levels by tens of thousands (sometimes hundreds of thousands) of dollars. Allowing larger unit sizes under Table 2A reduces the amount of affordable housing required and will not result in units affordable under state standards List Notification of PC Hearing with link to staff report and web site following legal ad EOC, County, Met to discuss homeless enumeration process and Cities staff and address homelessness issues. 272 Program 2.5 recommends looking at different ways for commercial developments to meet inclusionary requirements. Program 2.16 recommends evaluating the inclusionary ordinance for its ability to meet proportions called out in RHNA. n/a Program 8.19 requires identification of at least one zone where

273 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE emergency shelters are allowed by right consistent with SB Planning Commission Public Hearing discuss community profile (appendix A). Commission questioned income information given student population, status of Cal Poly housing, expressed the need to address extremely low income and senior populations, and need for affordable housing due to economic conditions, and support for smaller lots and houses. Policy 8.9 added to support efforts to implement the County s 10 Year Plan. Clarifying language added to appendix A. Draft policies and programs will be forthcoming to address other input Biz Steinberg, Community Action Partnership Human Relations Commission List Chamber Commerce of Support for rapid re-housing and SRO s. She supports a new sheltering facility with day programs and services. Public Hearing discuss community profile (appendix A) and legislative changes. HRC expressed interest in seeing program implementation proposals as they occur. Notification of PC Hearing with link to staff report and web site following legal ad. Reviewed current program evaluation with Chamber representatives. CC has concerns that Inclusionary housing requirement only applies to new development and would be interested in exploring other methods to finance affordable housing. The Chamber would like to participate with staff when evaluating effectiveness of inclusionary housing program work effort begins. Policy 8.9 added to indicate continued support for The 10 Year Plan. Program 8.20 supports transitional and supportive housing. Interest noted. n/a New programs 2.5 and 2.16 propose consideration of IHO and ability to meet assigned affordability proportions of RHNA as well as new ways for commercial development to meet IHO. Other options to consider include community-wide funding for affordable housing subsidy (i.e. transfer tax). City will involve all stakeholders at point program is initiated Jerry Rioux Housing Trust Fund - phone call Steve Barasch SLO Property Owners Association - phone call Charter City is not subject to prevailing wage requirements when it uses affordable housing fund or waives fees. Staff report is in error when it states that prevailing wage applies. Look for areas to up-zone around Cal Poly and the R-1 zones along Grand Ave. Look to the backsides of motels along Monterey and along freeway area. Pursue Broad St. corridor area for up-zoning. Up-zone of residential property easier to do politically than rezoning from non-residential to residential. Grant funds would be subject to prevailing wage. City funds may not be subject to state guidelines due to City s status as charter city. Programs 6.25 through 6.29 look at ways to produce additional housing and granny flats in appropriate areas, including increased density for CN, O and CD zones. Programs support higher density infill and program 6.12 identifies sites that may be appropriate for mixed use or residential uses. 273

274 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE Planning Commission Public Hearing discuss current program performance and review sites inventory examples Jerry Housing Fund Rioux- Trust Prevailing wage requirements add 30-40% to housing cost and City has advantage when it uses local Affordable Housing Funds or waives fees. Inclusionary housing percentage is too low and Table 2A does not result in affordable housing. City needs more rental housing. Density bonus standards need to be updated to be consistent with state law. Prevailing wage is a federal requirement City has no ability to influence. Program 2.16: evaluate the inclusionary housing ordinance for its ability to meet RHNA proportions. New program 3.14: expand affordable rental housing opportunities. New program 6.24: update the density bonus standards to be consistent with state law HBA Presented proposed program changes and updates. Members supportive of changes to allow flexibility in ways to meet inclusionary requirements. Input = fees and land costs make it difficult to build affordable housing. Restricted amount of vacant land make housing developments pricey. Amended program 2.5: look at different ways for commercial developments to meet inclusionary housing requirements. Program 2.9 looks for ways to subsidize impact fees through outside funding sources, however, fees are a small percentage of overall development costs Jerry Rioux Housing Trust Fund - meeting Look for ways to support limited equity housing cooperatives. This may involve adopting standards to allow co-ops such as allowing open parking instead of garages or carports. Mobilehome parks don t achieve the density needed for increasing housing supply but do meet a need in the community. Long term leases are needed for tenant security. Look at adopting a transfer tax as a revenue source for helping build affordable housing. Community should participate in helping support development of affordable housing, not just new development. Use CDBG funds for rehabilitation in exchange for limited commitment to rent restrictions. Program 6.12 has been updated with new sites to consider for residential development New program 6.29 directs City to consider new subdivision and zoning regulations to support alternative types of subdivisions and housing developments. Program 8.2 and 8.3 supports mobile home parks as a source of affordable housing and supports changes only if greater long-term security is achieved. New programs 2.5 and 2.16 call for evaluation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. As part of this effort, review of other financing options will occur. Program 3.12 encourages rehabilitation by allowing reduced 274

275 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE Mike Isensee phone call from Ag Commissioner Human Relations Commission Workforce Housing Coalition Make more properties eligible for secondary dwellings. Make it easier to convert portion of house and consider deed restrictions to defer impact fees as long as the deed restriction is in place to guarantee affordability. Housing Element policies and implementation measures that provide varied housing options, including housing for low income households will assist farm workers as a subset of low income households. Public Hearing discuss current program performance, proposed program additions and review sites inventory examples. HRC supports proposed policies and would like to be involved when program implementation goes forward. Presented status report and provided an overview of the proposed new policies and programs, including a discussion of existing implementation efforts. No specific direction provided by WHC. terms of affordability to the extent allowed by State or Federal law. New program 6.28 added to consider changes to the secondary dwelling ordinance to encourage construction, including design templates, flexible development standards, and fee reductions or deferrals. Policies and programs under Goal 2: Affordability Policies and programs address extremely low to low income households. Staff will include HRC review of implementation where appropriate Planning Commission Public Hearing Discuss draft policy and program changes. Recommend changes to be considered by City Council in anticipation of sending draft HE to the State HCD for initial review. Removed program supporting development of housing on Cuesta College campus due to Planning Commission concern about environmental sensitivity of Chorro Valley and lack of services on campus (i.e. students would still need to drive to nearby towns for market, drug store, clothing stores, etc.) List San Luis Coastal Unified School District City Council Notification of City Council Hearing with link to staff report and web site following legal ad. School District requested that two school sites be added as potential infill and mixed use development sites to HE Program 6.12: Old Pacheco School and Pacific Beach Continuation High School. Public Hearing - Discuss draft policy and program changes. Recommend changes considered by City Council and authorized draft HE to be sent to the State HCD for initial review. Added program 6.29 to consider subdivision and zoning regulation changes to support small lot subdivisions and other alternatives. n/a Program 6.12 updated to add the two properties to list of sites to consider for possible rezoning to support mixed use or residential development. Staff sent draft to State HCD for review. 275

276 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE Pearl Munak via Identified need for housing to accommodate homeless disabled and medically fragile homeless living on SSI. Specific requests: Encourage or require all senior housing to accept disabled persons on SSI who are not seniors Encourage development of nonprofit Residential Care Centers or require for-profit Residential Care Centers to provide beds for those on SSI Develop funding to support these activities Provide zoning for subsidized housing only no other housing allowed Practice inclusionary housing and make sure some of it is for disabled on SSI Encourage development of subsidized boarding and rooming houses Encourage conversion of old hotels and motels into Residential Care and subsidized boarding houses. Maintain a list of all housing suitable for SSI disabled Encourage hospitals and social service agencies to provide services and housing for disabled homeless Educate the City Council, Planning Commission and public on needs of this segment of the populations. Policy 8.1 encourages development of housing to meet a variety of special needs, including disabled persons and the homeless. This policy encourages group housing, SROs, co-housing and other solutions to meet these needs. Policy 8.8 indicates that special needs living facilities should be dispersed throughout the City in areas where public transit and community services are available rather than concentrating them in one district. The City does not want to create enclaves of disadvantaged residents but rather wants to integrate homeless and disabled residents into the community fabric. Therefore, no exclusive subsidized housing zone is proposed. However, subsidies in the form of grants and local affordable housing funds are available for developments that serve lower income residents. All programs that address low, very low and extremely low income residents will also address this special needs group. Policy 8.9 supports continued efforts to implement 10 Year Plan to end Chronic Homelessness New Program 8.21 indicates the City will identify properties (including motels) that can be acquired and converted to affordable permanent housing and permanent supportive housing for homeless persons and families Joan Harper Staff meeting with MH Park resident. Mobile home park residents experience challenges in influencing park owner to adequately maintain park. Rent stabilization provisions can discourage upgrades to new units (since market rate space rents may be charged when a new unit is installed). MH Park residents would like the City to create a MH Park zone that would replace existing underlying Many of the maintenance concerns expressed relate to lack of enforcement by State HCD and lack of cooperation by owner, which are outside of City control. Program 3.9 and 3.12 address rehabilitation efforts that MH owners can take advantage of. New program 8.24 added to consider addition of overlay zone to MH parks to reflect additional requirements apply in the form of municipal codes related to MH Park 276

277 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE List RQN meeting (Residents for Quality Neighborhoods) zoning to protect current parks. Reminder of Housing Workshop on August 20 th following legal ad. RQN supports development of new housing and intensification (including second dwellings) on outskirts of City, outside of established neighborhoods. Concerns about inadequate parking, student housing, and noise and maintenance complaints related to student rentals in neighborhoods. If compliance with state RHNA means reconsidering density within City limits, consider whether grant funding that is available when City is in compliance with HCD regulations is worth it. conversion and rent stabilization. n/a Staff does not recommend deleting programs and 6.12 that direct the City to consider areas that might be suitable for additional density or conversion to residential uses due to need to address RHNA and other General Plan policies that support infill development. Program 7.8 recommends finding ways to involve residents in decisions affecting their neighborhoods. Program 7.9 indicates the city will identify neighborhood needs, problems and opportunities for improvement. Program 7.10 specifies the city will help fund neighborhood improvements such as sidewalks, traffic calming, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and lighting. Program 7.11 indicates the city will continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies including parking districts. City s code enforcement and neighborhood services teams make an effort to address maintenance and behavior issues HE Workshop Housing Needs in the Community Workshop. Reviewed community profile with demographic information and housing stock information. Input: RQN member attended and provided much of the input listed under the previous entry. Staff from People s Self Help Housing supported small lot subdivisions where need for HOA is avoided. This makes housing much more affordable to tenants and less expensive to develop. Staff response to RQN issues can be seen above. New program 6.29 supports consideration of ordinance changes to support small lot subdivisions, ownership bungalow court development, and eliminating 1 acre minimum for PD overlay zoning. New program 2.16 proposes evaluation of effectiveness of Inclusionary Housing ordinance ability to produce housing in RHNA proportions. Exec Director from HTF indicated 277

278 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE that inclusionary housing ordinance requirements were too lenient and should be increased. Anonymous survey City should work to pass a real estate transfer fee tax and seek corporate and service club donations to pay into the affordable housing fund. New programs 2.5 and 2.16 call for evaluation of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. As part of this effort, review of other financing options will occur Joan Harper City should promote manufactured housing for small lot development Submitted letter requesting the City replace existing zoning for Mobile Home parks with a limited MH Park zone to reflect unique challenges of MH Parks and to require rezone prior to allowing conversion of park to a different use (City has MH Park conversion ordinance & MH Park rent control). New program 6.29 supports consideration of ordinance changes to support small lot subdivisions, ownership bungalow court development, and eliminating 1 acre minimum for PD overlay zoning. New program 8.24 added to consider addition of overlay zone to MH parks to reflect additional requirements apply in the form of municipal codes related to MH Park conversion and rent stabilization Supportive Housing Consortium Members discussed: the City s method for calculating income limits for affordable housing; affordable housing production during the previous RHNA period; new projects under construction and currently available affordable housing units; the program to rezone land for homeless shelters; and new funding opportunities that are identified or supported by new Housing Element programs. Input: 3-bedroom housing is not in as great demand as 2-bedroom housing units. Rental and sales prices listed for extremely low income households (based on 30% of income) is still too high to meet the needs of this income group. Program 2.11 help coordinate public and private sector actions to encourage development of housing that meets City s housing needs. Program 2.13 Amend affordable housing standards to consider incorporating HOA fees and a standard allowance for utilities in the calculation for affordable rents. New program 2.16 Evaluate the inclusionary housing ordinance s ability to meet the proportions shown in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Program 3.8 Adopt an ordinance that discourages the removal or replacement of affordable housing Pearl Munak, Transitional Food and Shelter Program via correspondence There is a need for housing for disabled persons on SSI with limited income. Need for both temporary and permanent housing for medically fragile households. SROs and 278 See detailed response to input on and below: Program help coordinate public and private sector actions to encourage development of housing that meets City s housing needs.

279 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE studios can fill this need. New program 2.18 Consider increasing residential densities on appropriate sites for housing affordable to extremely low income households. New program Continue to allow transitional and supportive housing uses in residential zones. New program 8.21 Identify properties to convert to affordable permanent supportive housing List Reminder of Housing Workshop on following legal ad HE Workshop Housing Development in the Community 09 Workshop. Staff presented demographic and housing stock information in addition to existing and proposed programs to support housing development. Input from survey responses: Don t implement program that would allow a developer to deed-restrict existing market-rate housing units to meet new development s inclusionary housing requirement. This doesn t produce more housing in community even if it does secure additional affordable housing unit(s). Allow reduced parking for multi-family rental projects that agree to parking- management plans. Consider zoning surplus city-owned land and other public properties for development of affordable housing projects. Market demand will guide what gets built, not what should get built. Environmental protection has been pursued at the expense of meeting basic human needs. Look at under-developed R-3 and R-4 areas. 279 New program Consult with service agencies that work with the disabled and adopt a program addressing reasonable accommodation. n/a Amended program 2.5 recommends looking at different ways for commercial developments to meet their inclusionary housing requirements. Program 6.9 directs the City to amend Zoning regulations and Parking and Management Access Plan to allow flexible parking regulations for housing developments. Affordable housing projects are allowed to have reduced parking requirements under current state law provisions. Amended program 6.12 lists 12 sites to consider for possible rezoning to support mixed use or residential development. New program 6.22 directs CDD staff to prepare property profiles of City-owned properties suitable for housing to facilitate public or private development. Program 6.15 Seek opportunities with other public agencies and utilities to utilize surplus land for housing and to convert vacant or

280 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE under-utilized buildings to housing. RHNA sets requirements for what should get built in the community. Private developers do actual construction based upon market demand. Link needs to be made and City can bring financial assistance to this process. Programs 2.11, 2.12, 2.16, 6.10, 6.13, 6.18, 6.24 address incentivizing housing development and affordable housing development in particular. No changes proposed. Existing General Plan policies support balance of development and environmental protection List Flyers and posters distributed at coffee shops, markets, Housing Authority, Community Action Partnership offices, City Hall and Community Development office building. Sandy Rawley Reminder of Housing Workshop on RQN member phone call Expressed concerns about increasing density in existing neighborhoods, parking issues, and desire to protect existing neighborhoods. New programs 6.26 and 6.27 encourage residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate n/a Staff does not recommend deleting programs and 6.12 that direct the City to consider areas that might be suitable for additional density or conversion to residential uses due to need to address RHNA and other General Plan policies that support infill development. 280

281 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE HE Workshop Neighborhoods and Sustainability Workshop. Staff presented demographic and housing stock information in addition to neighborhood rental information. Discussion with group regarding neighborhood issues and opportunities as well as neighborhood mapping exercise. RQN members dominated conversation and focused on parking, property maintenance, and noise concerns related to student rentals in neighborhoods. RQN expressed concerns about difficulty in establishing parking districts and unintended consequences of pushing the problem into adjacent neighborhoods. Input: Keep existing densities in R-1 and R-2 zones. Housing on Cuesta and Cal Polycampuses should be developed or increased. Adjust process to make formation of residential parking districts easier for neighborhoods. Mix of single family residences, townhomes, apartments, and public housing in neighborhood works well in the Islay area. 281 Program 7.8 recommends finding ways to involve residents in decisions affecting their neighborhoods. Program 7.9 indicates the city will identify neighborhood needs, problems and opportunities for improvement. Program 7.10 specifies the city will help fund neighborhood improvements such as sidewalks, traffic calming, crosswalks, parkways, street trees and lighting. Program 7.11 indicates the city will continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies including parking districts. City s code enforcement and neighborhood services teams make an effort to address maintenance and behavior issues. Program 1.6 Enact a rental inspection program to improve the condition of the City s housing stock. City s code enforcement and neighborhood services teams make an effort to address maintenance and behavior issues. New program 6.29 supports evaluation and consideration of ordinance changes to support small lot subdivisions, ownership bungalow court development, and eliminating 1 acre minimum for PD overlay zoning. Implementation will involve evaluation, environmental review and public outreach before any changes are adopted and RQN members will have the opportunity to participate in the process. Staff will review the specific development cited to understand what worked and what didn t work as part of that PD. No changes are proposed to densities in R-1 zones. New

282 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE program 6.26 directs city to evaluate underlying lot patterns and how this impacts the ability of properties in R-2 to R-4 zones to achieve their intended densities. Programs 8.4 through 8.6 encourage Cal Poly to maintain and develop on-campus housing for students and faculty. Cuesta College was deleted from these policies by the Planning Commission due to concerns about environmental sensitivity of the Cuesta College campus site. Program 7.11 indicates the city will continue to develop and implement neighborhood parking strategies including parking districts. RQN may work with Public Works in changing implementation procedures to address their needs. Program 5.5 supports housing variety and tenure in new developments List Planning Commission Notification of PC Hearing with link to staff report and web site following legal ad. Review HCD response and input from workshops. Planning Commission directed staff to work with the County of San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly and HCD to count the apartments recently constructed on the Cal Poly campus as part of the City s Regional Housing Allocation. n/a Both Cal Poly and the County of San Luis Obispo support counting the housing constructed on the Cal Poly campus toward meeting the City s RHNA since student demand for housing impacts the City of San Luis Obispo and not the other jurisdictions. County staff did not count these units towards their RHNA because they assumed these units should rightfully be assigned to the City Joe Collins correspondence from apartment owner. Request that City s affordable housing HCD has indicated that if the City annexes the college within this Housing Element cycle timeframe and the County has not. counted the units toward meeting their RHNA, the City may as part of the annexation process negotiate an agreement to count the units that were constructed during this Housing Element timeframe Program 2.13 indicates the City will amend the Affordable Housing Standards to establish a method for 282

283 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE List standards be made the same as other communities. Request that affordability guidelines take into consideration amenities and adjust allowed rents accordingly Request to participate in process of changing standards. Notification of PC Hearing with link to staff report and web site following legal ad. adjusting the standards and secure Council approval of the method. In addition the program directs the City to consider incorporating HOA fees and standard allowances for utilities in the calculation for affordable rents and home sales prices. When staff brings this item forward for Council consideration, Mr. Collins will have the opportunity to participate in the process and influence the outcome. n/a Planning Commission Hearing Input from Joanne Wheatley, Richard Mortensen, Pat Mullen, Rachel Rosenthal, and Carolyn Smith expressing concern about residential development on site behind General Hospital. Planning Commission provided direction to revise wording on several programs to clarify intent and requested inclusion of a table that shows program implementation sorted by timeframe. Amended language in Policy 6.6 and Program 6.23 to address General Hospital site. Made changes directed by Planning Commission and added additional table to Appendix F, Program Implementation Rachel Rosenthal via Madelyn Milholland meeting with staff Madelyn Milholland via Staff meeting with General Hospital Neighborhood residents Expressed concern regarding HCD comment regarding small sites and indication that most Federal and State financial aid is directed to developments of units. Supports smaller residential infill and wants City to push for more aid for smaller scale developments. Raised questions and expressed concerns regarding residential development behind neighboring General Hospital property. confirmed information shared at meeting on and requested clarification of site-specific issues. Neighbors expressed concerns about residential development on property behind General Hospital. Concerns included: Loss of open space, traffic, visual, and safety issues. No changes to Housing Element proposed. A mix of housing types and solutions is already addressed in Element and City s Affordable Housing Fund has been used for smaller affordable infill projects (i.e. Habitat for Humanity 2 unit low income dwellings). No changes to Housing Element proposed. Staff clarified intent of proposed policy and program language and offered to meet with neighbors. No changes to Housing Element proposed. Staff indicated willingness to provide information and meet with neighbors to share information. No changes to Housing Element proposed. Staff provided information that Housing Element policy and program were intended to guide consideration of future development proposal but did not address project- 283

284 DATE WHO INPUT RESPONSE Staff and County Supervisor Adam Hill meeting with General Hospital Neighborhood residents Madelyn Milholland via Warren Lowry via Neighbors expressed concerns about residential development on property behind General Hospital. Concerns included: Loss of open space, traffic, visual, and safety issues. In addition, conceptual proposal of County to retire development potential from steeper hillside lots to the south to the property behind General Hospital is not acceptable due to belief that those hillside lots are too steep to develop and therefore no benefit accrues in retiring development potential. Expressed concerns related to potential traffic issues associated with a housing development proposal on the San Luis Obispo School District property on Johnson Avenue. Also has concerns related to proposed Policy 6.6 to designate the area behind General Hospital as a Special Design Area. indicates that open space should remain undeveloped; language related to potential need for a water tank should be deleted; and any land currently outside of the City limits should not be included as part of the policy. Expressed concern about proposed program 6.23 that implements Policy 6.6. Concerns are related to increased density or areas of residential development behind the hospital property due to congestion and safety issues as well as concern related to loss of open space. specific evaluation of any particular proposal. Staff commitment to work with neighborhood if development proposal is submitted. No changes to Housing Element proposed. Staff provided information on intent of Housing Element policy and program. Supervisor Adam Hill explained rationale behind transferring development potential to General Hospital site and committed to work with City and neighborhood if project ever came to fruition to address neighborhood concerns. School District proposal for housing development is an active application going through environmental review and architectural review. Traffic issues will be addressed as part of the entitlement process. Policy 6.6 wording was not changed by City Council. The Council indicated that the policy provided guidance and constructive notice to any future project applicants that development in the area may require additional infrastructure. Since the policy is intended to provide both guidance and flexibility, the Council declined to add specific acreage or details in order to encourage creative housing development proposals. Policy 6.6 and Program 6.23 designate the area behind the General Hospital property as suitable for residential development provided special design considerations, such as slope, open space, and water service are addressed. The Council did not change this proposed wording. Any future residential development proposal will have this policy and program guidance to lead the consideration of project entitlements. This supports SB 2 direction to avoid nimby-ism associated with residential projects. list (attached ) includes representatives from: The Tribune Newspaper, The New Times newspaper, John Evans Cannon Engineering, Julian Crocker San Luis Coastal Unified School District Superintendant, 284

285 SLO Property Owners Association, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, Pat Cormick, Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, San Luis Obispo Housing Trust Fund, Local Agency Formation Commission, San Luis Obispo Senior Center President, Neighborhood residents near the General Hospital property, Native American Tribal representatives, Habitat for Humanity, Cal Poly Housing Corporation, League of Women Voters, EcoSLO, Community Action Partnership (formerly EOC), Peoples Self Help Housing Corporation, Sierra Club, Air Pollution Control District, Workforce Housing Coalition, SLO Association of Realtors, Home Builders Association, Joe Collins, Local Developers, Downtown Association, 26 Mobile Home park residents, an attorney representing a mobile home park owner, and Ted Bench, SLO County planner. Example of sent prior to each public meeting: This is provided to keep you informed about the City s progress in updating the Housing Element of the General Plan. Our goal is to provide meeting updates and links to agenda reports through these s. Your address will remain private. If you would prefer not to receive these s, please let me know and I will take you off the list. Also, please feel free to forward this to others who may be interested. (1) The Planning Commission will be hearing a presentation on the status of the Housing Element Update on February 25, 2009, during their regularly scheduled meeting, which begins at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 990 Palm Street. City staff will present an evaluation of existing Housing Element programs and will discuss the process of identifying sites that can accommodate more housing. The link below will take you directly to the staff report and attachments for that hearing: (2) Our Housing web page is where you can find all of the relevant Housing Element Update documentation, including staff reports, presentation slides, links to the state website and public correspondence. If the link below is not active, you can copy and paste it into your browser window. If you have any questions or comments about information in this , the web page, or the Housing Element Update, please don t hesitate to call or write. Community Development Department staff looks forward to serving you as a resource for information and also to hearing from you during the update process. Kim Murry Deputy Director, Long Range Planning City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA Ph: Fax: Web: kmurry@slocity.org 285

286 Appendix L Affordable Housing in the City of San Luis Obispo Affordable Housing City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department May 15,

287 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT The City has prepared this document to describe and quantify the supply and location of affordable housing within the City of San Luis Obispo. Affordable dwellings are summarized according to affordability level, affordability term, creation by inclusionary housing requirements, housing types, and ownership. DEFINITIONS Affordability Level This document lists dwellings deemed affordable under City standards to very low-, low-, and moderate-income persons. Income levels categories are based on the percentage of the county median income, as follows: Extremely Low 30% or Less Very Low 31 to 50% Low 51% to 80% Moderate 81% to 120% Above Moderate 121% or Higher The categories extremely low, very low, and low and moderate are also used to describe properties that provide affordable units for different affordability levels (very low- and lowincome or low-and moderate-income) on the same property. Affordability Term Affordability term refers to the length of time that a housing unit is to remain affordable. For purposes of this document, affordability term was categorized as either indefinite or 30 years. Generally, indefinitely affordable units are those expected to remain permanently affordable because they are owned by a non-profit housing provider or other organization or agency whose primary purpose is to provide affordable housing. Units affordable for 30 years tend to be those units created due to inclusionary housing (see below) requirements and must remain affordable for a minimum of 30 years, at which time they may then be sold at market rate. The Housing Element requires that affordable housing must include guarantees that it remain affordable for the maximum period allowed under State law, typically 45 years. For rehabilitated units, the minimum affordability period is 20 years. Inclusionary Housing Inclusionary housing units are those units that have been created due to inclusionary housing requirements imposed upon developments of five or more units. According to the terms of inclusionary housing agreements, these units typically must remain affordable for a period of no less than 30 years at which time they may be sold at market rate prices. These regulations were implemented in order to create and maintain more affordable units within the community. The affordability term was established to preserve a unit s affordability over the longest period possible to maximize public benefits from the Inclusionary Housing Program. 287

288 Housing Type For ease of mapping, housing types were classified as apartments, condos, group, and single-family residences. Descriptions of each housing type are as follows: Apartments are characterized as complexes of dwelling units rented out to tenants within a larger building occupied by more than one household. Condominiums (condos) are characterized as complexes of individually owned dwelling units within a larger building occupied by more than one household where common parts of the property are jointly owned. Group Housing includes dwelling units in which assemblages of non-related persons reside together. Single Family Residences (SFRs) are individually owned dwelling units intended to be occupied by 1 family. Both attached and detached SFRs were included in the summary. Ownership Ownership refers to who owns the units. Public ownership includes all properties owned by the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO), Peoples Self-Help Housing Corporation (PSHHC), or other affordable housing organization. Private ownership designation includes all properties owned or maintained by other agencies. AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUMMARY, May 15, 2009 TOTAL OF UNITS 804 AFFORDABILITY LEVEL of units very low 37 very low & low 3 Low 686 Low mod 47 mod 31 total 804 AFFORDABILITY TERM of units indefinite years 115 total 804 INCLUSIONARY of units No 730 Yes 74 total 804 HOUSING TYPE of units Apt 769 condo 7 group single family 22 women's shelter 6 288

289 total 804 OWNERSHIP of units public 384 private 420 total 804 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT and NUMBER OF DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE DWELLING UNITS Refer to the following maps for locations of the affordable housing units. Map Number Name Street Address Number of Affordable Units 289 Type of Assistance Earliest Possible Date of Conversion 1 Transitional Housing -- 1 Rent subsidy Permanent 2 Villareal Project 2290 Santa 1 Ynez Avenue Hathway Street 4 Cipora Novak Project 1435 Phillips 1 Lane 5 Courtyards on Walnut 1144 Walnut 1 Street 6 Brizzolara Street 611 Brizzolara 30 Apartments (HASLO) Street 7 Brizzolara Apartments 537 Brizzolara 5 (PSHHC) Street Anderson Hotel / 955 Monterey 70 8 Monterey Arms (HASLO) 9 Pismo Street Station 1363 Pismo 11 (HASLO) Street 10 Judge s House Condos 1720 Johnson 1 Avenue 11 Toro Garden 1600 Toro 20 Apartments (HASLO) Street Islay 20 Street 13 Adriance Apartments 1062 Islay 11 (ASN) Street 14 Pacific Terrace 544 Pacific 24 Apartments (HASLO) Street Carmel 2 Street 16 Park Hotel Apartments 1820 Santa 21 Barbara Street Upham 3 Street High 8 Street Leff 19 Street 20 ASN Apartments 345 High Street 3

290 High Street Harris 3 Street 441 Branch 8 Street, King Street, 448 South Street 24 Dan Law Apartments 649 Branch 9 Street 25 Villa Rosa Condos 759 Lawrence 1 26 Villa Rosa Condos 811 Lawrence 1 27 Villa Rosa Condos 913 Lawrence 1 28 Villa Rosa Condos 2862 Victoria 1 29 Parkwood Village 1045 Southwood Drive Loma Vista 2929 Augusta 16 Apartments Street 31 Judson Terrace 3000 Augusta 108 (ABHOW) Street 32 Judson Terrace Lodge 3042 Augusta 32 (ABHOW) Street 33 Transitional Housing* 4 34 Augusta Street Condos 3051 Augusta 1 Street Southwood Drive 36 Marvin s Garden 1105 Laurel 24 (HASLO) Lane 37 Ironbark Apartments 1102 Ironbark Poinsettia Street 4035 Poinsettia 20 Apartments (HASLO) 39 Palm Court 3053 South 3 Apartments Higuera Street 40 Puerta Del Sol 4280 South 15 Apartments Higuera Street Royal 8 Street 42 Madonna Road 1550 Madonna 120 Apartments Road De Tolosa Ranch Los Osos Valley Road Rancho Obispo Los 7 44 Osos Valley Road Rancho Obispo Los Apartments Osos Valley Road Palm View Apartments 47 De Tolosa Ranch Apartments Los Osos Valley Road

291 48 49 Women s Shelter Transitional Housing* Villas at Higuera (PSHHC) 3071 South Higuera Street Ella Street Senior Housing (HASLO) 51 Rolph Condos 1063 Ella 3 52 Broad Street Mixed Use Sacramento 53 Tumbling Waters 861 Orcutt 12 Road 54 Poly Canyon Village Cal Poly TOTAL 1. Transitional Housing* (1) 2. Villareal Project, 2290 Santa Ynez Avenue (1) Hathway Street (20) 4. Cipora Novak Project, 1435 Phillips Lane (1) 5. Courtyards on Walnut, 1144 Walnut Street (1) 6. Brizzolara Street Apartments, 611 Brizzolara Street (30) 7. Brizzolara Apartments, 537 Brizzolara Street (5) 8. Anderson Hotel / Monterey Arms, 955 Monterey Street (68) 9. Pismo Street Station, 1363 Pismo Street (11) 10. Judge s House Condos, 1720 Johnson Avenue (1) 11. Toro Garden Apartment, 1600 Toro Street (20) Islay Street(20) 13. Adriance Apartments, 1062 Islay Street (9) 14. Pacific Terrace Apartments, 544 Pacific Street (24) Carmel Street (2) 16. Park Hotel Apartments, 1820 Santa Barbara Street (21) Upham Street (3) High Street (8) Leff Street (19) 20. ASN Apartments, 345 High Street (3) High Street(6) Harris Street (3) Branch Street, 2173 King Street, 448 South Street (8) 24. Dan Law Apartments, 649 Branch Street (9) 25. Villa Rosa Condos 759 Lawrence (1) 26. Villa Rosa Condos 811 Lawrence (1) 27. Villa Rosa Condos 913 Lawrence (1) 28. Villa Rosa Condos 2862 Victoria (1) 29. Parkwood Village, 1045 Southwood Drive (34) 30. Loma Vista Apartments, 2929 Augusta Street (16) 31. Judson Terrace, 3000 Augusta Street (108) 32. Judson Terrace Lodge, 3042 Augusta Street (32) 291

292 33. Transitional Housing* (4 tenants) 34. Augusta Street Condos, 3051 Augusta Street (1) Southwood Drive (3) 36. Marvin s Garden, 1105 Laurel Lane (24) 37. Ironbark Apartments, 1102 Ironbark (20) 38. Poinsettia Street Apartments, 4035 Poinsettia (20) 39. Palm Court Apartments, 3053 South Higuera Street (3) 40. Puerta Del Sol Apartments, 4280 South Higuera Street (15) Royal (8) 42. Madonna Road Apartments, 1550 Madonna Road (120) 43. De Tolosa Ranch, Los Osos Valley Road (14) 44. Rancho Obispo, Los Osos Valley Road (Rancho Obispo) (7) 45. Rancho Obispo Apartments, Los Osos Valley Road (Rancho Obispo Apartments) (13) 46. Palm View Apartments (20) 47. De Tolosa Ranch Apartments, Los Osos Valley Road (25) 48. Women s Shelter Transitional Housing* (6) *For reasons of privacy and security, the Women s Shelter and transitional housing units were included in the summary but not identified by address or in the case of the Shelter, shown on the following maps. 292

293 101 Cal Poly University Mod-Inc Low- & Mod-Inc Low-Inc Very-Low- & Low-Inc Very-Low-Inc (/ N 40 Affordability Level

294 101 Cal Poly University years Indefinite (/ N 40 Affordability Term 294

295 101 Cal Poly University Yes No (/ N 40 Inclusionary Housing 295

296 101 Cal Poly University Apt Condo Group SFR (/ N 40 Type of Housing 296

297 101 Cal Poly University Private Public (/ N 40 Ownership 297

298 Appendix M Residential Development Capacity Inventory Purpose This survey lists properties within the City s Urban Reserve Line (URL) with additional housing development potential. The purpose of the survey is to document the City s residential land capacity to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The RHNA is the number of housing units that California cities and counties must accommodate in their housing elements, and is specific to each jurisdiction. Properties were determined to have capacity for additional housing development if they were vacant, underutilized, or blighted and had zoning to support residential development. By documenting residential development potential, the Planning Commission and City Council can assess the City s housing stock and make informed decisions regarding housing needs for the 2009 General Plan Housing Element update. Definitions For the purpose of this survey, the following definitions were used: Vacant refers to a property with no structures other than signs, walls, or fences. Underutilized means a property with only minor accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds, or if developed, where less than 40 percent of the lot was covered with buildings (excluding properties in the Downtown Core, C-D Zone). Blighted properties are identified by one or more of the following conditions: damaged, sagging, or failed roof, walls, foundation, stairs or porch; broken, missing, or extremely weathered siding (stucco, wood, asbestos tile); broken, boarded, or missing windows, torn window screens; badly damaged or missing doors; exterior; outdated plumbing. Property, lot, and parcel are used interchangeably and refer to one or more adjacent lots of record under common ownership. Urban Reserve Line or URL refers to the area which encompasses urban land and can be inside or outside of the City Limits. 298

299 In-City properties include only those properties located within the City Limits. Outside-City properties are those outside of the City limits, but within the Urban Reserve Line. Survey Methodology As part of the data collection and analysis phase of the Housing Element update, Community Development staff worked over a period of six months to document the condition of the housing stock and identify sites with residential development or redevelopment potential. This involved three steps: 1. Establish survey areas 2. Identify and document vacant, underutilized, or blighted properties 3. Determine potential for additional residential development Staff began by dividing the City into 28 survey areas (See Figure 1), including land outside of the City limits but within the Urban Reserve Line (URL). Survey area boundaries generally follow major circulation routes, natural barriers, and neighborhood boundaries and are identical to the boundaries used in the 2004 survey, with a few minor changes to reflect recent annexations. A windshield survey was then conducted, in which staff would drive each street of the selected area and take notes and photograph each property, which met the definition of vacant, underutilized, or blighted. Notes for each property included the address (where applicable), existing use, zoning, slope, housing type and number of units, and if buildings were present, their exterior condition. When no address was visible, staff would make note of the surrounding addresses and sketch the property location. After completing each survey area, staff documented the correct address (if not visible), County Assessor s Parcel number (APN), General Plan and zoning designation, and total square footage of each property using the City s Land Use Program. Once each area was surveyed and documented, staff summarized the number of vacant, underutilized, or blighted properties and their acreages for each area and then for the entire City. In 2003, Community Development Staff prepared detailed Development Capacity Worksheets as part of the 2004 Housing Element Update for each property identified as having residential development potential. These worksheets were re-evaluated to verify property status and accuracy of previous survey data. Staff added properties that had been annexed into the City since the previous survey, or were found to have changed status. Properties, which were vacant or underutilized in 2004, and have since been developed to their maximum capacity, were removed from the 2009 survey. Development Capacity Worksheets contain the following information for each property: 299

300 The Preparer of the record, Property Address, Assessor s Parcel Number (APN), Survey Area Number, Zoning Development Constraints Under State law, the site inventory analysis must include an estimate of the number of housing units that can be accommodated on each site identified in the land inventory within the planning period. The element must describe the methodology used to estimate the realistic capacity. The element should not estimate unit capacity based on the theoretical maximum buildout allowed by the zoning. Development capacity estimates must consider: 1. Applicable land-use controls and site improvement requirements. The analysis must consider the imposition of any development standards that impact the residential development capacity of the sites identified in the inventory. When establishing realistic unit capacity calculations, the jurisdiction must consider existing development trends as well as the cumulative impact of standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, parking, and FARs; 2. Existing Uses: The inventory must consider the impact of existing development when calculating realistic development capacity. For example, to demonstrate the unit capacity of underutilized sites, the analysis should describe and explain the factors that make developing additional residential units feasible (within the planning period). Consider the following example: A one-acre parcel zoned for 20 dwelling units per acre and developed with a single-family home. The element must demonstrate the local government has a track record of facilitating and supporting the intensification of sites, and describe the incentives the local government offer would offer (through a specific program action) to attract and assist developers; and 3. Small Sites (less than one acre): The element should include an analysis demonstrating the estimate of the number of units projected on small sites, is realistic or feasible. The analysis should consider development trends on small sites as well as policies or incentives to facilitate such development. For example, many local governments provide incentives for lot consolidation. In addition, while it may be possible to build housing on a small lot, the nature and conditions (i.e., development standards) necessary to construct the units often render the provision of affordable housing infeasible. For example, assisted housing developments utilizing State or federal financial resources typically include units. To utilize small sites to accommodate the jurisdictions share of the regional housing need for lower-income households, the element must consider the impact of constraints 300

301 associated with small lot development on the ability of a developer to produce housing affordable Figure M-1 Residential Capacity Survey Subareas 301

302 1. General Plan Designation, 2. Development Status (vacant, underutilized, blighted), 3. Existing Land Use (residential, commercial, other), 4. Housing Type (single house, condos, apartments, other), 5. Number of Stories and Buildings, 6. Housing Condition (if blighted), 7. Site Constraints (slope, creeks, trees), 8. Development Potential, 9. Additional Notes To verify and update the status of each property in the 2004 survey, staff compiled a list of properties that received building permits between 2004 and Vacant or underutilized properties that had been developed to their full potential were removed from the survey and vacant properties that were partially developed were then considered underutilized. For blighted properties, the condition of the structure was re-evaluated. If the property was rebuilt or repaired to a point that it no longer met the definition of blight, the property was removed from the survey. Properties were also added to the survey in one of three different ways: 1. If the property had been annexed during the last five years, 2. If the property had become vacant or underutilized due to the demolition of buildings, 3. If a property had become sufficiently deteriorated to meet the definition of blight. Development Capacity Calculation After reviewing the survey sheets for each property, the potential for development on each property was calculated by applying the following rules. Development Potential was calculated by: 1. Determining the maximum allowed density in units per acre according to average slope and land use zone designation (See Table 1). 2. Determining the maximum number of density units allowed on the property by multiplying the developable lot in acres (excluding creek setbacks, street right-ofways or plan-lines, and designated open space areas, or areas outside of the Urban Reserve Line) by the maximum allowed density units per acre. Recent housing projects within the City indicate that most properties do not develop to their maximum build out potential due to parking and setback requirements, access, and landscaping requirements. With this knowledge, the City has applied a conservative estimate of 75 percent of the maximum residential capacity, to all properties within the survey. (max allowed density x.75 = surveyed capacity) 302

303 3. Vacant properties potential was calculated by applying the 75 percent rule 4. If the property was considered both underutilized and blighted, it was assumed that the property would be redeveloped, in its entirety, and would then follow the vacant property 75 percent rule. 5. If a property was underutilized, but not blighted, the percentage of the property that was developed was subtracted from the developable lot area and the remainder (anything not developed) was multiplied by 75 percent. For example, a 20,000 square foot property, with a building footprint of 5,000 square feet, has a total of 15,000 square feet that can be developed. The remaining 15,000 square feet would then be multiplied by the maximum density and by 75 percent ((total area-developed area) x max density x.75). 6. Blighted properties were considered to have development potential and likely to be redeveloped to their existing capacity if the buildings had structural issues (damaged, sagging, or failed roof, wall, foundation, or porch degradation). In these cases, the properties were not assigned additional development capacity, but were flagged as properties with the potential for redevelopment or rehabilitation. 7. Vacant properties with the potential for mixed-use commercial/residential development were calculated following the same residential capacity method, as the City allows mixed use properties to meet both the residential and commercial maximum capacities determined by lot size. Average Cross Slope in % Table M-1 Maximum Density by Zone and Slope Maximum Density Allowed (density units per acre) R- 1 R-2, O, C-N, C-T R-3 R-4 C-R, C-D, C-C C-S, M Where site features, such as lot orientation, natural features or the presence of historic buildings, warranted a further reduction from the maximum residential capacity, an adjustment factor was applied on a case-by-case basis. Survey Assumptions 303

304 The following assumptions were made to determine development capacities for each property: 1. Downtown (C-D zone) properties were considered to have development potential if they had: Less than 100 percent building lot coverage; An approved or proposed development plan; Had not undergone seismic retrofit or significantly modified in the last 5 years. Vacant and underutilized properties within the Downtown have recently seen an increase in mixed-use residential projects as parking structures have been developed, thus eliminating the need for surface parking lots. 2. If a property had a proposed development plan (planning approval or building permit), development capacity was assumed to equal the number of approved dwelling units, less the number of existing units. 3. For single properties with multiple zoning designations, the development potential was calculated for the area of the property in each zone and then added together. 4. Housing capacity for property with an approved or proposed specific plan, utilized the numbers outlined in the Specific Plan document to calculate housing capacity. The Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP) and Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) were used for this survey. 5. The potential for adding secondary dwelling units was not included in development capacity calculations. 6. Property development capacity is based on existing zoning, except in limited cases where rezoning is anticipated based on a pending application or Planning Commission or City Council action. 7. Properties located within any of the Airport Land Use Plan s S-1 safety zones were determined to have no additional housing capacity. 8. Properties with restrictions that prohibit further subdivision and density were left in the inventory, but calculated with a capacity of zero additional units to acknowledge that they were included in the survey. Survey Organization Once the development potential for each property was calculated, the information was organized in three different ways: by survey area, zoning designation, and development status 304

305 (vacant, underutilized, blighted). Each organizational method provides the City s staff and decision makers with important indicators of which areas, zones, or types of properties are best suited for future residential growth. Development Capacity by Area Organizing the inventory by survey area gives staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council a better geographic idea of where to expect or plan for residential growth over the next five years. Figure N-2 shows the number of additional dwelling units that could be developed within the planning period by survey areaach survey area can realistically accommodate with the development of all vacant, underutilized, and blighted properties. This survey has determined that the City has the potential to accommodate 3,772 additional twobedroom dwellings, or the equivalent in density units, within the City s Urban Reserve Line, based on existing available land and the current condition of existing housing. Areas with little or no potential for additional housing capacity, were determined to be at or near full residential build-out or affected by other restrictions like the Airport Land Use Plan. Areas 18 and 21 include properties that have a pending or approved specific plan, the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area Specific Plans, which account for a majority of the potential for additional housing. Figure M-2 Development Capacity by Survey Subarea Density Units Sub Area

306 Development Capacity by Zoning Designation Organizing the City s development capacity by zoning designation rather than subarea gives a better idea of what types of density and housing the City can accommodate. Only those properties within the existing City limits were included in this chart because properties within the Urban Reserve Line, but outside of the City limits are not zoned and do not have zoning designations. While zones R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones are specifically intended for residential use, the City s commercial, office, public facility, and manufacturing zones also allow dwellings as part of mixed use development or freestanding use when compatible with onsite and surrounding uses. Figure M-3 Development Capacity by Zone and Outside City R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 C/OS O PF C-N C-T C-C C-S C-R C-D M Outside City The zones with the most potential for accommodating additional residential units include Medium density residential (R-2), Low density residential (R-1), and High density residential (R-3) with potential for an additional 871 density units, 522 density units, and 360 density units respectively. Figure 3 shows residential development potential by zone. For the purpose of this 306

307 survey, properties with overlay zoning districts, such as R-2-H (Medium Density Residential with Historic District Overlay), were not separated from the primary zoning designation. Development Capacity by Development Status Properties were sorted by development status into three groups: vacant, underutilized, and blighted. This was to allow an examination of the condition of housing and to identify sites with infill development and redevelopment opportunities. In some cases, a property was categorized as underutilized and blighted, when it met the characteristics of both definitions. Vacant properties account just over one-half (53 percent) of the City s total residential capacity, blighted properties accounting for about 4 percent, and the balance comprised of underutilized properties. Table M-2 summarizes the number of potential density units for each subarea, and the total acreage available for future development of each type of land. Additionally, the table is broken down by available land within the city and land outside of the city limits but within the URL. Unless otherwise noted, all parcels listed in Table M-2 are available for development within this element s planning period, with access to City streets, utilities and services. 307

308 Table M-2 Summary of Residential Capacity by Parcel, by Subarea Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 1 R X < 15% 31, sfr covering one-half; remainder of lot is vacant and planned for additional house 1 R X < 15% 222, sfr and ranch, needs curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveway 1 R-1-PD X 19.7% 17, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X 26% 44, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X < 15% 30, vacant developable flag lot with creek and driveway access X 16-20% Cal Fire property adjacent to R subdivision; within URL Subtotal 1,865, R X < 15% 16, sfr on large lot R X < 15% 17, sfr on large lot R X < 15% 8, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X 17% 21, vacant developable lot on sensitive site 2 R-1-PD X 19% 16, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X 12.5% 29, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 5, sfr with exterior deterioration R X < 15% 6, sfr with boarded windows and unkept landscape

309 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 2 R X < 15% 19, Vacant City-owned lot, pre-zone and annex application pending R X < 15% 7, sfr with significant debris in street view Subtotal 148, R X X < 15% 34, units on large property showing blight conditions 3 R X 16% 33, sfr covering half, suitable for additional development 3 R X < 15% 47, sfr covering half of lot, requires 3.04 common d/w to serve vacant portion at rear of lot 3 R X 19% 69, large lot with sfr covering half R X < 15% 32, lot with two frontages, sfr along foothill frontage 3 R X < 15% 42, sfr on large lot with creek R X 17% 202, existing units on 7 acre property R X < 15% 57, historic structure with space for additional units 3 R X 19% 10, vacant lot on sensitive site, applications pending 3 R X 20% 18, vacant developable lot R X 22% 14, acre vacant lot with 14,000 zoned for a single sfr

310 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 3 R X < 15% 15, vacant developable flag lot R-1-S X 21% 114, vacant developable lot with C/OS and R-1 designations, 114,000 for R R X < 15% 9, vacant developable flag lot R X < 15% 6, sfr in fair condition with outside debris and storage Subtotal 709, C-N X 20% 12, commercial building covers half, 1.00 suitable for additional development C-T X < 15% 12, vacant developable lot along creek with street access 4 O X < 15% 97, vacant developable portion of lot along street frontage 4 R X 27% 159, sfr on large lot, driveway access for additional unit 4 R X 24% 60, sfr on large lot, driveway access for additional unit 4 R-1-S X 25% 122, sfr on large lot, driveway access for additional unit 4 R-1-S X 19% 72, sfr on large lot with driveway access for additional units 4 C-N X < 15% 5, under conceptual review for new retail building 4 C-N X < 15% 6, under conceptual review for new retail building

311 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 4 C-N X < 15% 10, under conceptual review for new retail building 4 C-T X < 15% 22, vacant developable lot R X 17% 20, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 9, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 8, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 6, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 18% 34, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 26% 18, vacant developable flag lot with street access 4 R-1-S X 20% 46, vacant developable lot 4.00 Subtotal 725, C-T X < 15% 23, existing triplex with minor deterioration, suitable for redevelopment 5 O X < 15% 17, back half of lot vacant, lacks street access 5 O X < 15% 24, sfr on large office zoned lot, 4.11 suitable for additional development Subtotal 66, R X < 15% 15, approved subdivision creating two lots for an additional sfr 6 R X < 15% 17, sfr on half, suitable for additional development

312 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 6 R X < 15% 17, sfr on front of lot; deep lot development possible 6 R X < 15% 24, sfr on front of lot; deep lot development possible 6 R X < 15% 10, vacant developable lot adjacent to creek 6 R-4/ R X <15% 12, Existing sfr in fair condition, lot with multiple frontages 6 R X 18% 9, vacant developable lot R X 26% 5, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 8, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 26% 14, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 26% 26, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 26% 6, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 26% 14, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 26% 16, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 26% 96, R-1 portions of lot vacant and have street access 6 R-1-S X 16-20% 100, vacant developable lot on sensitive site; near Hwy 101 noise 6 R X < 15% 5, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 11, vacant developable lot C-N X < 15% 18, proposed mixed use project with affordable housing

313 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units Subtotal 439, O X < 15% 16, existing parking lot, suitable for development 7 R X < 15% 7, sfr with room for additional unit in back 7 R X < 15% 7, sfr with room for additional unit in back 7 R X < 15% 9, sfr with room for additional unit in back 7 R X < 15% 14, commercial development with parking lot and vacant portion along palm frontage 7 R X < 15% 6, unit on back half of lot, suitable for additional development R X < 15% 8, unit on back half of lot, suitable for additional development C-R-S X < 15% 9, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 8, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 15, vacant developable lot R X 10% 20, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 17% 8, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 18% 6, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 18% 6, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 19% 6, vacant developable lot

314 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 7 R-1-S X 19% 11, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 20% 6, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 20% 6, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 22% 22, vacant developable lot on sensitive site 7 R-1-S X 22% 3, vacant developable lot 1 7 R-1-S X 22% 4, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 23% 15, vacant developable lot on sensitive site 7 R-1-S X 26% 5, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 26% 3, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 26% 14, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 26% 6, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 27% 5, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 6, corner lot with R-2 portion vacant and developable 7 R and X 22.7% 33, Rezone to R-4 General Plan Amendment, Tract Map and housing proposal under current review Subtotal 321,

315 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 8 C-R X < 15% 4, parking lot suitable for development 8 C-R X < 15% 10, Single building with large parking lot 8 C-R X < 15% 13, Single building with large parking lot 8 C-R X < 15% 14, existing car dealership C-R X < 15% 18, existing car dealership C-R X < 15% 22, commercial building with small parking lot 8 C-R X < 15% 42, commercial building and parking lot 8 C-R X < 15% 31, gas station covering half C-R X < 15% 36, small commercial building with 3/4 of property parking lot 8 O X < 15% 5, parking lot suitable for development 8 R X < 15% 10, sfr on half of corner lot R X < 15% 10, sfr on half of lot R-2-H X < 15% 13, contributing historic property along Mill Street, half vacant and developable 8 R-2-H X < 15% 37, sfr on large lot with suitable for additional development Subtotal 272,

316 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 9 C-C X < 15% 10, Auto repair shop with parking lot C-D X < 15% 12, proposed project with 4 residential units 9 C-D X < 15% 10, commercial building with small parking lot 9 C-D X < 15% 17, Commercial building with two parking lots 9 C-D X < 15% 25, bank building and parking C-D X < 15% 27, City parking lot with proposed project 9 C-D-H X < 15% 10, Proposed project with 3 residential units on a historic site 9 C-D-H X < 15% 5, story office/retail structure C-D-H X < 15% 8, parking lot suitable for development 9 C-D-H X < 15% 14, parking lot suitable for development 9 C-D-H X < 15% 23, proposed mixed-use project C-R X < 15% 14, sfr with duplex and parking lot C-R X < 15% 23, sfr with duplex and parking lot O X < 15% 5, small office structure covering front half of property 9 O X < 15% 7, sfr on rear of lot O-H X < 15% 12, contributing historic structure with office uses

317 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 9 R-2-S X < 15% 31, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 10, sfr along street front covering 1/2 of property 9 C-D X < 15% 22, developable flag lot with driveway access to rear 9 C-R X < 15% 9, vacant developable lot with creek setback 9 O X < 15% 6, vacant developable lot O X < 15% 6, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 17% 9, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 6, vacant developable lot 2.49 Subtotal 332, C-D X < 15% 5, parking lot suitable for development 10 C-D X < 15% 15, parking lot suitable for development 10 C-S X < 15% 21, master list historic structure with adjacent parking lot 10 C-S X < 15% 17, three residential structures covering half of the lot 10 C-S X < 15% 19, structure with large parking lot, suitable for development 10 C-S-MU X < 15% 16, Utility substation and parking lot C-S-MU X < 15% 22, warehouse building with truck loading docks

318 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 10 O X < 15% 3, parking lot adjacent to bank building 10 O X < 15% 12, Historic structure on half of lot, 1.72 suitable for additional development R X < 15% 36, Truck company warehouses with outdoor storage, suitable for redevelopment 10 R-2-H X < 15% 6, contributing historic structure with corner of lot suitable for development R-2-H X < 15% 7, contributing historic structure on rear of property 10 R-3-H X < 15% 5, Contributing historic structure on corner lot 10 R-3-H X < 15% 38, older houses and storage yard for non-conforming business; surrounded by multifamily zoning; suitable for redevelopment 10 C-S X < 15% 7, Three commercial structures, suitable for redevelopment 10 R-2-H X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot 1.50 Subtotal 242, C-N X X < 15% 19, sfr and commercial structure on property 11 C-R- MU X < 15% 36, Caltrans site suitable for mixed use development

319 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 11 C-R- MU X < 15% 17, units on site with creek, suitable for additional development C-R- MU X < 15% 18, Residence and commercial structures adjacent to creek, suitable for additional development 11 C- T/C/0S X < 15% 764, vacant/open space R X X < 15% 6, sfr on corner lot, suitable for redevelopment 11 R X < 15% 7, sfr at rear of lot, suitable for additional development 11 R X < 15% 7, sfr at rear of lot, suitable for additional development 11 R X < 15% 7, sfr on lot with two street frontages, 1.09 suitable for additional development R X < 15% 8, sfr on lot with two street frontages, 1.23 suitable for additional development 11 R X < 15% 8, sfr on lot with two street frontages, 1.24 suitable for additional development 11 R X < 15% 9, duplex on lot with two street frontages, suitable for additional development

320 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 11 R X < 15% 9, sfr on lot with two street frontages, 1.28 suitable for additional development 11 R X < 15% 10, sfr on corner lot, suitable for additional development 11 R X < 15% 13, sfr on property with rear lot street access 11 R X < 15% 22, sfr on corner lot, suitable for additional development 11 C- T/C/0S X 33% 3,494, open space on steep slope R X < 15% 4, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 4, parking lot for adjacent property R X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 9, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 5, blighted sfr, suitable for redevelopment 11 R X < 15% 5, blighted sfr, suitable for redevelopment Subtotal 4,499, PF/ R X < 15% 172, county owned property, suitable for development 12 R X < 15% 56, sfr on large lot, suitable for additional development

321 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 12 R X 16% 101, proposed project to subdivide property into 8 lots 12 R X < 15% 10, duplex on hillside lot R X 13% 7, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 13% 11, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 19% 6, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 10% 7, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 9% 7, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 15% 6, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 16% 6, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 12% 6, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 16% 6, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 10% 6, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 20% 42, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 12% 6, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X < 15% 30, vacant city-owned lot adjacent to historic adobe 12 R X 17% 60, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 11% 9, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 9% 15, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 10% 11, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 17% 13, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 14% 8, vacant lot in subdivided tract

322 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 12 R-1-S X 22% 9, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 25% 15, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 17% 16, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 16% 19, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 16% 14, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 13% 10, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 21% 33, vacant lot in subdivided tract R-1-S X 18% 28, vacant lot in subdivided tract R X 22% 33, rezoned lot from PF to R-2, suitable 2.30 for development Subtotal 790, X 21% 56, existing sfr on lot with creek, with room for additional development R X < 15% 24, sfr on lot with room for additional development 13 R X < 15% 29, parking lot for church on adjacent property, suitable for future development 13 R X < 15% 292, county owned property with part of property zoned R-1 suitable for development 13 R X 19% 12, vacant developable lot R X 21% 12, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 8, vacant developable lot

323 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 13 R X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 35, active application to subdivide vacant parcel into 3 13 R-1-S X 18% 221, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 14, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 16, vacant developable lot X 16-20% 69, sfr on hillside property, suitable for development once annexed X 16-20% 137, vacant hillside property suitable for development once annexed X 16-20% 154, sfr on hillside property, suitable for development once annexed X 16-20% 375, sfr on hillside property, suitable for development once annexed X 16-20% 294, vacant hillside property suitable for development once annexed X 16-20% 42, sfr on hillside property, suitable for development once annexed Subtotal 1,814, O-S X < 15% 544, French Hospital and parking lot with large vacant area suitable for development 14 PF X < 15% 154, county health services building utilizes half of lot

324 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 14 R X X < 15% 23, blighted sfr on large flag lot, suitable for redevelopment 14 R X < 15% 52, large lot with 2 sfr, suitable for additional development 14 R-2-S X X < 15% 7, blighted sfr, suitable for redevelopment 14 R-2-S X X < 15% 8, blighted sfr, suitable for redevelopment 14 R-2-S X < 15% 46, sfr on lot with creek, suitable for additional development 14 R-2-S X X < 15% 72, blighted sfr, site suitable for redevelopment 14 R X 18% 9, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 6, vacant developable lot R X 23% 10, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 10, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 11, vacant developable lot R X 20% 25, shed structures, suitable for development 14 R X < 15% 15, shed structures, suitable for development 14 R X < 15% 26, parking lot for adjacent property, 5.57 suitable for additional development 14 R-2-S X < 15% 26, vacant developable lot

325 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 14 R X 14% 5, blighted sfr, suitable for redevelopment 14 R X 20% 17, blighted sfr, suitable for redevelopment Subtotal 1,083, C-N X < 15% 17, sfr on lot suitable for additional development 15 C-N X < 15% 76, commercial structures and parking lot Subtotal 94, C-S X < 15% 16, structure used as office C-S X < 15% 46, commercial structure with proposed cell towers 16 C-S X < 15% 54, restaurant/bakery building on corner of lot 16 M X X < 15% 11, blighted sfr M X X < 15% 11, sfr on lot with room for additional development 16 M X < 15% 6, sfr on lot with room for additional development 16 M X < 15% 11, warehouse on lot with room for additional development 16 M X < 15% 16, blighted triplex, with room for additional development 16 M X < 15% 27, storage yard suitable for redevelopment

326 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 16 M X < 15% 40, sfr and storage shed, suitable for additional development 16 M X < 15% 40, parking lot, suitable for redevelopment 16 M X < 15% 88, large and 4 small warehouse structures, suitable for redevelopment 16 M X < 15% 8, parking lot M X < 15% 16, proposed project with 19 single resident occupancy units Subtotal 396, R X X < 15% 46, blighted mobile home park and abandoned motel 17 C-S- S/R-2-S X < 15% 65, application to subdivide lot into two residential parcels and one commercial 17 M X < 15% 148, manufacturing structure, suitable for additional development 17 R X < 15% 14, sfr and garage structures, suitable for additional development R-2-S X <15% 25, sfr on site with slope R-2-S X < 15% 74, sfr on lot with street access R X X < 15% 183, blighted mobile home park and abandoned motel 17 C-S-S X 11% 12, vacant lot with street access

327 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 17 M/ R X < 15% 95, vacant lot with creek R X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X 25% 5, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X < 15% 4, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X < 15% 3, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X < 15% 6, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X < 15% 1, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X < 15% 5, vacant developable lot R-1-PD X < 15% 6, vacant developable lot R-2-S X 17% 40, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 5, blighted structure suitable for redevelopment Subtotal 753, C-N- MU- SP 18 C-N- SP Margarita Specific Plan Margarita Specific Plan X < 15% 12 Maximum Density determined by Specific Plan X < 15% 7 Maximum Density determined by Specific Plan Specific Plan Property under development, remaining units to be approved in future phases are included here Specific Plan Property under development, remaining units to be approved in future phases are included here 18 C-S-SP X < 15% 61, Airport Land Use Plan Jurisdiction

328 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 18 C-S-SP X < 15% 16, Airport Land Use Plan Jurisdiction C-S-SP X < 15% 18, Airport Land Use Plan Jurisdiction C-S-SP X < 15% 19, Airport Land Use Plan Jurisdiction C-S-SP X < 15% 20, Airport Land Use Plan Jurisdiction R-1- SP 18 R-2- SP 18 R-3- SP 18 R-4- SP Margarita Specific Plan Margarita Specific Plan Margarita Specific Plan Margarita Specific Plan X < 15% 81, Maximum Density determined by Specific Plan X < 15% 972, Maximum Density determined by Specific Plan X < 15% 343, Maximum Density determined by Specific Plan X < 15% 34, Maximum Density determined by Specific Plan Specific Plan Property under development, remaining units to be approved in future phases are included here Specific Plan Property under development, remaining units to be approved in future phases are included here Specific Plan Property under development, remaining units to be approved in future phases are included here Specific Plan Property under development, remaining units to be approved in future phases are included here Subtotal 1,532, R X < 15% 7, vacant developable lot

329 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 19 R X < 15% 6, blighted structure 0.00 Subtotal 13, PF X < 15% 236, Public school being considered for closure and redevelopment, suitable for residential development 20 R X < 15% 5, blighted structure Mixed Zones X < 15% 5,724, Proposed commercial development with residential component Subtotal 9,967, C-S X < 15% 191, telecommunications facility C-S-S X < 15% 21, sfr on recently rezoned property, 2.93 suitable for additional development M-S X < 15% 98, commercial structures cover half of lot, suitable for additional development or redevelopment C-C-PD X < 15% 173, vacant property rezoned for future mixed-use 21 C-S-S X < 15% 13, rezoned for future commercial development 21 C-S-S X < 15% 14, rezoned for future commercial development 21 C-S-S X < 15% 16, rezoned for future commercial development 21 M X < 15% 10, vacant developable lot

330 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 21 M X < 15% 12, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 285, specific plan property R X < 15% 510, specific plan property R X < 15% 434, specific plan property R-1/R X < 15% 490, specific plan property R X < 15% 287, specific plan property R X < 15% 587, specific plan property R-2/R X < 15% 1,273, specific plan property R X < 15% 222, specific plan property R X < 15% 231, specific plan property R X < 15% 206, specific plan property R X < 15% 2,118, specific plan property Subtotal 7,200, R-1 SP X < 15% 26, sfr and 2 storage structures, 1.00 suitable for additional development 22 R-1-SP X < 15% 125, sfr and 2 storage structures, suitable for additional development 22 C-S X < 15% 6, vacant developable lot with creek setback 22 R-1-SP X < 15% 20, blighted sfr structure, suitable for redevelopment

331 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 22 R-1-SP X < 15% 61, blighted sfr on property with creek, suitable for redevelopment 4.97 Subtotal 241, C/OS X < 15% 1,116, Sunset drive-in, suitable for development in future 24 C-S-S X < 15% 88, Airport Land Use Plan Jurisdiction O-PD X < 15% 28, Airport Land Use Plan Jurisdiction C-S X < 15% 18, Airport Land Use Plan Jurisdiction O-PD X < 15% 407, Airport Land Use Plan Jurisdiction 0.00 Subtotal 1,659, C/OS C/OS X < 15% 415, agriculture use inside urban reserve, suitable for future development X < 15% 592, agriculture use inside urban reserve, suitable for future development Subtotal 1,007, R-1-S X 13% 10, vacant developable lot R-1-S X 13% 9, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 11, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 12, vacant developable lot

332 Subarea Zone Assessor s Parcel Number Vacant Underutilized Blighted Avg. Slope Sq. Ft. Acres Density units per acre Max. Res. Capacity, density units Constraints to Development/Existing Conditions Realistic of Dwelling Units 26 C-R X < 15% 318, vacant developable lot X < 15% 856, vacant developable lot Subtotal 1,218, R-1-S X < 15% 13, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 11, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 11, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 15, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 16, vacant developable lot R-1-S X < 15% 10, vacant developable lot 1.00 Subtotal 80, R X < 15% 11, vacant developable lot R X < 15% 10, vacant developable lot 1.00 Subtotal 22, Totals 33,532, , *** 332

333 Appendix N Glossary Affordable Housing. Housing that meets the rental or sales price standards as established by the City and published annually in the Affordable Housing Standards. Such housing is made available for very-low, low and moderate income persons or households, and subject to deed restrictions or other instrument that ensure the housing remains affordable for a predetermined period. Assisted Housing. Housing units, including multi-family or single-family, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized by Federal, State, or local housing programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density bonus programs. Below-market-rate Housing. Housing that is sold or rented at prices less than the fair market value or prevailing market rent for the unit, and the financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates. Boarding/Rooming House. A dwelling or part of a dwelling where lodging is furnished for compensation to more than three persons living independently from each other. Meals may also be included. Does not include fraternities, sororities, convents, or monasteries. Building. Any structure used or intended for sheltering or supporting any use or occupancy. Build-out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites within the City s Urban Reserve, in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of development anticipated by the General Plan by the year Build-out does not assume that each parcel is developed with the maximum floor area or dwelling units possible under zoning regulations. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities and urban counties, and by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. CDBG funds are used by cities and counties for land purchase, housing rehabilitation and community development, public services and facilities, economic development, and other purposes that primarily benefit persons or households with incomes less than 80 percent of County median income. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Restrictions or requirements that are placed on a property and its use by a property owner, usually as a condition of subdivision approval. CC&Rs are a deed restriction and run with the land, and are legally binding.

334 Density Bonus. An increase in the allowed base density applied to a residential development project. The increase allows the development of more dwellings than a property s zoning would otherwise allow, and is usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of affordable housing or housing amenity. Density, Residential. The number of permanent dwellings per net acre, measured in Density Units, as further described in Chapter of the Zoning Regulations. Density Unit A density unit is defined as a two-bedroom dwelling. In the AG, C/OS and R-1 zones, each dwelling, of any number of bedrooms, counts as one density unit. In all other zones, dwellings with different bedroom numbers have density unit values as follows: a. Studio Apartment (450 sq. ft. or less) 0.50 Density Unit b. One-bedroom Dwelling 0.66 Density Unit c. Two-bedroom Dwelling 1.00 Density Unit d. Three-bedroom Dwelling 1.50 Density Units e. Dwelling with four or more bedrooms 2.00 Density Units Director. The Director of the City s Community Development Department, or another staff person authorized by the Director to act on his or her behalf. Dormitory. A building used as a group quarters for students, as an accessory use for a college, university, boarding school, or other similar institutional use. Downtown Core. The City s central business district, comprising the most diverse mix of residential, commercial, governmental, and public uses, and defined by the C-D zone boundary as shown in the Zoning Map. Downtown Planning Area. The central area of the City generally defined by the boundaries formed by State Highway 101, the Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way, and High Street, and the intersections thereof, as described in the General Plan Land Use Element. Elderly or Senior Housing. Housing designed to meet the needs of and enforceably restricted to occupancy by persons 62 years of age and older or, if more than 150 units, persons 55 years of age and older. Enforceably Restricted. Refers to housing that is deemed affordable under the City s Affordable Housing Standards and that is subject to deed restrictions, affordable housing agreements or other mechanisms to ensure the housing remains affordable for a prescribed period. Expansion Area. An area located outside City limits but within the Urban Reserve and 334

335 designated for future urban development, as further described in the General Plan Land Use Element text and map. Fair Market Rent. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) for purposes of administering the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Fraternity House (or Sorority House). A Residence for college or university students who are members of a social or educational association, and where such an association holds meetings or gatherings. Granny Flat. See Second Residential Unit. Historic Property. A property, including land and building, determined by the City to have archaeological, historical, or architectural significance as described in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and listed on the Contributing Properties List or Master List of Historic Resources. Household. All persons, including those related by birth, marriage or adoption and unrelated persons, who occupy a single dwelling. Housing or Dwelling Unit. A building, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential use considered real property under State law and on a permanent foundation, with provisions for sleeping, cooking and sanitation, and with permanent connections to utilities. Infill Housing. Development of housing on vacant lots within the City limits on property zoned for such uses. Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio describing the number of jobs compared with dwelling units in a defined geographic area, and a measure of the adequacy of the housing stock to meet community needs. Live-Work or Work-Live Unit. An integrated housing unit and work space, occupied and utilized by a single household in a structure, either single-family or multi-family, that has been designed or structurally modified to accommodate joint residential occupancy and work activities, and which includes: 1) Complete kitchen and sanitary facilities in compliance with City building code, and 2) Working space reserved for and regularly used by one or more occupants of the unit. The difference between live-work and work-live units is that the work component of a livework unit is secondary to its residential use, and may include only commercial activities and pursuits compatible with the character of a quiet residential environment, while the work 335

336 component of a work-live unit is the primary use, to which the residential component is secondary. Mixed-Use Development. Development in which various uses, such as office, commercial, manufacturing, institutional, and residential are combined in single building or in multiple buildings on a single parcel or on multiple, contiguous parcels, developed as integral unit with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design; property designated MU on the City s Zoning Map. Multi-family Dwelling. A dwelling that is part of a structure containing one or more other dwellings, or a non-residential use. An example of the latter is a mixed-use development where one or more dwellings are part of a structure that also contains one or more commercial uses (retail, office, etc.). Multi-family dwellings include: duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes (buildings under one ownership containing two, three or four dwellings, respectively, in the same structure); apartments (five or more units under one ownership in a single building); and townhouse development (three or more attached dwellings where no unit is located above another unit. It does not include Granny Flats or Secondary Dwelling Units. Municipal project. A development project designed, funded, or carried out by the City of San Luis Obispo and described as a capital project in the City s Financial Plan. Parcel. A area of land defined by boundaries set by the Tax Assessor of the County of San Luis Obispo, roughly equivalent to the meaning of a lot for development purposes. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). A determination of a locality s housing needs by the local Council of Government and based on State law, that takes into account various factors such as population growth, employment growth, vacancy rates, housing removals, and concentration of poverty. Rehabilitation. The repair, preservation, and or improvement of housing; and for historically designated structures, work done according to rehabilitation standards established by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior and described in the Secretary of the Interior s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and related documents. Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and Zoning Regulations for dwellings and accessory uses. Second Residential Unit. An attached or detached studio, or one-room dwelling, with not more than 450 square feet of gross floor area and that includes permanent provisions for cooking, sleeping and sanitation, and is located on the same parcel on which the primary dwelling unit is located, pursuant to requirements in Ch of the Zoning Regulations. Sensitive Site. A site determined by the Community Development Director, Planning or Architectural Review Commission, or City Council, to have special characteristics or limitations, 336

337 such as historic significance, creekside location, or visual prominence, requiring more detailed development review than would otherwise be required for other similarly zoned lots nearby. Single-family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household, and that is structurally and physically separate from any other such dwelling. Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Unit. A single-room dwelling, typically square feet in floor area, with a sink and a closet, with communal or individual facilities for cooking and sanitation. Tenure. The mode or status of residency, whether by renting or owning real property. Transitional Housing. Housing provided to homeless persons, abused women or children, or other persons with special housing needs for a temporary period, and generally integrated with other social services and programs including counseling, education, and training to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through gaining stable income and permanent housing. Underutilized Site. A site that has the land area capacity to accommodate additional dwelling unit(s) while meeting all General Plan policies and all zoning regulations, including setbacks, building height and lot coverage requirements without the application of variances. Universal Design. Universal design is the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible without the need for adaptation or specialized design. 337

338 Appendix O References American Planning Association, Regional Approaches to Affordable Housing, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 513/514, February American Planning Association, Affordable Housing: Proactive & Reactive Planning Strategies, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 441, December California Economic Forecast, The San Luis Obispo City Economic Forecast, Volume 8, May California State Department of Housing and Community Development, Building Blocks For Effective Housing Elements, California State Department of Housing and Community Development, California Planning Roundtable, Myths & Facts About Affordable & High Density Housing, May California State Governor s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, City of SLO General Plan Digest, City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, 2004 Housing Element Update, adopted March 30, City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, Final EIR - San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Updates, August Myers, Dowell & Gearin, Elizabeth, Current Preference and Future Demand for Denser Residential Environments, Housing Policy Debate, Volume 12, Issue 4, Fannie Mae Foundation Myers, Dowell & Vidaurri, Lonnie, Real Demographics of Housing Demand in the United States, The Lusk Review for Real Estate Development and Urban Transformation, Volume II, Number 1, Summer, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California and California Coalition for Rural Housing, Inclusionary Housing in California: 30 Years of Innovation, Olson Company, Rewarding Ambition: Latinos, Housing and the Future of California, A Report Produced By: Pepperdine University, La Jolla Institute, & Cultural Access Group, Inc., 338

339 September San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce, Workforce Housing: Challenges and Responses, January San Luis Obispo Community Health Foundation, ACTION for Healthy Communities: Indicators Report, SLO Council of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Plan For San Luis Obispo County, October San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services and Homeless Services Coordinating Council, Homeless Enumeration Report, San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building, General Plan Housing Element, August Trouble On The Home Front: The Eight-Day Series, The Tribune, San Luis Obispo County, California, Series Reprint: June 16-23, Urban Land Institute, The Case for Multifamily Housing, U.S. Census Bureau, Census U.S. Census Bureau, Census U.S. Department of Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty:1999, Census 2000 Brief, May Vessely, Robert S.; Reay, Thomas G.; and Merriam, Andrew G. San Luis Obispo Downtown Housing Study. Prepared for the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo, December

340 Appendix P Inclusionary Housing Requirement Tables 2 and 2A Table 2 Inclusionary Housing Requirement Type of Development Project 1 Residential - Adjust base requirement per Table 2A Commercial Location In City limits In Expansion Area Build 3% low or 5% moderate income Affordable Dwelling Units (ADUs 2 ), but not less than 1 ADU per project; or 3 pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of building valuation. 4 Build 5% low- and 10% moderate income ADUs, but not less than 1 ADU per project; or pay in-lieu fee equal to 15% of building valuation. Build 2 ADUs per acre, but not less than 1 ADU per project; Or pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of building valuation. Build 2 ADUs per acre, but not less than 1 ADU per project; or pay in-lieu fee equal to 5% of building valuation. 1 Residential developments of four or less dwellings, and commercial developments of 2,500 gross square feet of floor area or less are exempt from these requirements. 2 Affordable Dwelling Units must meet City affordability criteria listed in Goal Developer may build affordable housing in the required amounts, pay in-lieu fee based on the above formula, or dedicate real property, or a combination of these, to City approval. 4 "Building valuation" shall mean the total value of all construction work for which a permit would be issued, as determined by the Chief Building Official. 340

341 Project Density (Density Units/Net Acre) 1 TABLE 2A Inclusionary Housing Requirement Adjustment Factor 2 Average Unit Size (sq. ft.) Up to 1,101-1,500 1, ,001-2,500 2,501- >3,000 1,100 3, or more < Including allowed density bonus, where applicable. 2 Multiply the total base Inclusionary Housing Requirement (either housing or in-lieu percentage) by the adjustment factor to determine requirement. At least one enforceably-restricted affordable unit is required per development of five or more units. 341

342 Appendix Q Council Resolutions 342

343 Environmental Study 343